Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Section 45 in The Insurance Act, 1938 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mithoolal Nayak vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 15 January, 1962
Where the policy holder, who had been treated, a few
months before he submitted a proposal for the insurance of
his life with the insurance company by a physician of repute
for certain serious ailments as anaemia, shortness of breath
and asthma, not only failed to disclose in his answers to
the questions put to him by the insurance company that he
suffered from those ailments but he made a false statement
to the effect that he had not been treated by any doctor for
any such serious ailment,
Held (i) that, judged by the standard laid down in s.
17, Contract Act, the policy holder was clearly guilty of a
fraudulent suppression of material facts when he made his
statements, which he must have known were deliberately false
and hence, the policy issued to him relying on those
statements was vitiated.
The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956
The Insurance Act, 1938
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Smt. G.M. Channabasemma on 6 December, 1990
This decision was relied upon in Life Insurance
Corporation of India vs. Smt.G.M.Channabasamma (1991) (1)
SCC 357, in which the following observations were made:
Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta vs Collector Jabalpur And Ors. on 22 October, 1980
The
position is also well settled that if the contract entered
between the parties provide an alternate forum for
resolution of disputes arising from the contract, then the
parties should approach the forum agreed by them and the
High Court in writ jurisdiction should not permit them to
by-pass the agreed forum of dispute resolution. At the cost
of repetition it may be stated that in the above discussions
we have only indicated some of the circumstances in which
the High Courts have declined to entertain petitions filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of
contractual rights and obligation; the discussions are not
intended to be exhaustive. This Court from time to time
disapproved of a High Court entertaining a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution in matters of enforcement of
contractual rights and obligation particularly where the
claim by one party is contested by the other and
adjudication of the dispute requires inquiry into facts. We
may notice a few such cases; Mohammed Hanif vs. The State
of Assam (1969) 2 SCC 782; Banchhanidhi Rath vs. The State
of Orissa and ors. (1972) 4 SCC 781; Smt. Rukmanibai
Gupta vs. Collector, Jabalpur and others (1980 (4) SCC 556;