Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Senior Manager vs Ku. Manju Bhattacharya on 7 February, 2014 cites

Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs New India Assurance Company Ltd on 10 July, 2009

"12. We have relied upon several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2009) CPJ 8 (SC) = VI (2009) SLT 338 = (2009) 8 SCC 316, P.C. Chacko and Anr. v. Chairman, LIC of India, III (2008) CPJ 78 (SC) = IX (2007) SLT 533 = IV (2007) ACC 773 (SC) = (2008) 1 SCC 321, LIC of India v. Smt. Asha Goel, I (2001) SLT 89 = (2001) 2 SCC 160, have discussed the term "Material Fact" as fact which goes to the root of the contract of insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be material. The term material fact is not defined in the Act and, therefore, it has been understood and explained in general terms to mean as any fact which influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determine whether he would like to accept the risk.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 608 - D K Jain - Full Document

United India Insurance Company ... vs 1.Krishan Lal Son Of Lala Ram, ... on 27 March, 2012

"We are not unmindful of the fact that Life Insurance Corporation being a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its action must be fair, just and equitable but the same would not mean that it shall be asked to make a charity of public money, although the contract of insurance is found to be vitiated by reasons of an act of the insured. This is not a case where the contract of insurance or a clause thereof is unreasonable, unfair or irrational which could make the Court carried the bargaining powers of the contracting parties. It is also not the case of the appellants that in framing the aforesaid questionnaire in the application/proposal form, the respondents had acted unjustifiably or the conditions imposed are unconstitutional."[See also Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Vinod Devi, IV (2013) CPJ 142 (NC)].
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

P.C. Chacko And Another vs Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation ... on 20 November, 2007

"15. It is an undisputed fact that Shri Akhil Khan the deceased had taken LIC policy from the respondent for a sum of Rs.51,000/- on 1.1.2004. It is also an admitted fact that as per the bed head ticket of Maharana Bhopal Hospital, Udaipur the deceased was admitted to the hospital on 3.6.2003 for the treatment of chronic renal failure, hypertension, septicaemia, nephritis and was discharged from the hospital on 6.6.2003. While the State Commission has correctly come to the conclusion that the petitioner were justified in repudiating the claim of the respondents on the ground of suppression of material fact regarding health and that the finding of the District Forum rejecting the claim of the respondents were based on correct appreciation of entire material evidence available on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality or perversity and hence, no interference is called for with the same and appeal was dismissed. The State Commission erroneously went on to award an ex gratia payment on humanitarian consideration of Rs.15,000/-. This is beyond the // 12 // pleadings of the respondents. Further, in P.C. Chacko and Anr. v. Chairman Life Insurance Corportion of India and Ors., IV (2007) ACC 773 (SC) = IV (2007) CLT 229 (SC) = IX (2007) SLT 533 = III (2008) CPJ 78 (SC) = 2007 XAD (SC) 429, in which paragraph 20 which is relevant to us in this case reads as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 351 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1