Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.42 seconds)
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company ... vs Neeru Suri on 22 January, 2026 cites

Harish Kumar Chadha vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 7 October, 2013

It was further argued that the policyholder and the Life Assured, being educated individuals, had signed the proposal form and customer declaration after being fully informed of the product name, policy term, premium payment term and benefits, thereby negating any allegation of mis-selling or coercion. Insurance being a contract governed by its terms, no relief beyond the policy conditions could be granted. In the absence of any deficiency in service, the SA No. 31 of 2025 & 14 connected matters Page 14 of 22 directions to refund premium with interest and compensation amounted to rewriting the contract and were legally unsustainable. He sought that the findings of State Commission be set aside and relied on Mohan Lal Benal Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP No. 2870/2012 Decided on 16.10.2012); Harish Kumar Chadha Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Decided on 07.10.2013 in RP No. 3271 of 2013); Shrikant Murlidhar Apte vs. LIC of India, RP no. 634 of 2012 decided on 02.05.2013; Kishor Chandrakant Rathod Vs. The Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr (Decided by the NCDRC on 21.05.2014 in RP No.3390 of 2013); Prema & Ors Vs. LIC of India, IV (2006) CPJ239 (NC); A.V. Cottex Limited Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, [2017 (2) CPR 696 (NC)]; Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. V/s Garg Sons International [2013 (I) Scale410)] in support of his arguments.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Shrikant Murlidhar Apte vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 2 May, 2013

It was further argued that the policyholder and the Life Assured, being educated individuals, had signed the proposal form and customer declaration after being fully informed of the product name, policy term, premium payment term and benefits, thereby negating any allegation of mis-selling or coercion. Insurance being a contract governed by its terms, no relief beyond the policy conditions could be granted. In the absence of any deficiency in service, the SA No. 31 of 2025 & 14 connected matters Page 14 of 22 directions to refund premium with interest and compensation amounted to rewriting the contract and were legally unsustainable. He sought that the findings of State Commission be set aside and relied on Mohan Lal Benal Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP No. 2870/2012 Decided on 16.10.2012); Harish Kumar Chadha Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Decided on 07.10.2013 in RP No. 3271 of 2013); Shrikant Murlidhar Apte vs. LIC of India, RP no. 634 of 2012 decided on 02.05.2013; Kishor Chandrakant Rathod Vs. The Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr (Decided by the NCDRC on 21.05.2014 in RP No.3390 of 2013); Prema & Ors Vs. LIC of India, IV (2006) CPJ239 (NC); A.V. Cottex Limited Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, [2017 (2) CPR 696 (NC)]; Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. V/s Garg Sons International [2013 (I) Scale410)] in support of his arguments.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

A.V. Cottex Limited vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 28 April, 2017

It was further argued that the policyholder and the Life Assured, being educated individuals, had signed the proposal form and customer declaration after being fully informed of the product name, policy term, premium payment term and benefits, thereby negating any allegation of mis-selling or coercion. Insurance being a contract governed by its terms, no relief beyond the policy conditions could be granted. In the absence of any deficiency in service, the SA No. 31 of 2025 & 14 connected matters Page 14 of 22 directions to refund premium with interest and compensation amounted to rewriting the contract and were legally unsustainable. He sought that the findings of State Commission be set aside and relied on Mohan Lal Benal Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP No. 2870/2012 Decided on 16.10.2012); Harish Kumar Chadha Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Decided on 07.10.2013 in RP No. 3271 of 2013); Shrikant Murlidhar Apte vs. LIC of India, RP no. 634 of 2012 decided on 02.05.2013; Kishor Chandrakant Rathod Vs. The Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr (Decided by the NCDRC on 21.05.2014 in RP No.3390 of 2013); Prema & Ors Vs. LIC of India, IV (2006) CPJ239 (NC); A.V. Cottex Limited Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, [2017 (2) CPR 696 (NC)]; Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. V/s Garg Sons International [2013 (I) Scale410)] in support of his arguments.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Ram Kumari And Ors 24 Mac/390/2015 ... on 30 January, 2018

The learned counsel asserted that the agent of OP deliberately suppressed the true nature, terms and financial implications of the policy with the sole motive of earning his commission. Had these facts been disclosed, the Complainant would never have purchased the policy. He asserted that, being a Govt pensioner who is dependent on limited income for household expenses, the policy itself reflected clear mis-selling and unfair trade practices by the OP. He argued that similar complaints against OP were pending before various fora, indicating a pattern of mis-selling. He relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt. Usha Yadav & Ors 2008 (3) RCR (Civil); Dharmendra Goel Vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Il (2008) CPJ 63 (SC); Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K Gupta, Il (1993) CPJ 7 (SC); Isnar Aqua Farms V/s United India Insurance Go. Ltd., SC 616 2023 in support of his arguments.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 233 - Full Document

Dharmendra Goel vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd on 30 July, 2008

The learned counsel asserted that the agent of OP deliberately suppressed the true nature, terms and financial implications of the policy with the sole motive of earning his commission. Had these facts been disclosed, the Complainant would never have purchased the policy. He asserted that, being a Govt pensioner who is dependent on limited income for household expenses, the policy itself reflected clear mis-selling and unfair trade practices by the OP. He argued that similar complaints against OP were pending before various fora, indicating a pattern of mis-selling. He relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt. Usha Yadav & Ors 2008 (3) RCR (Civil); Dharmendra Goel Vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Il (2008) CPJ 63 (SC); Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K Gupta, Il (1993) CPJ 7 (SC); Isnar Aqua Farms V/s United India Insurance Go. Ltd., SC 616 2023 in support of his arguments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 103 - H S Bedi - Full Document

Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993

The learned counsel asserted that the agent of OP deliberately suppressed the true nature, terms and financial implications of the policy with the sole motive of earning his commission. Had these facts been disclosed, the Complainant would never have purchased the policy. He asserted that, being a Govt pensioner who is dependent on limited income for household expenses, the policy itself reflected clear mis-selling and unfair trade practices by the OP. He argued that similar complaints against OP were pending before various fora, indicating a pattern of mis-selling. He relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt. Usha Yadav & Ors 2008 (3) RCR (Civil); Dharmendra Goel Vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Il (2008) CPJ 63 (SC); Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K Gupta, Il (1993) CPJ 7 (SC); Isnar Aqua Farms V/s United India Insurance Go. Ltd., SC 616 2023 in support of his arguments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 1040 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Mohan Lal Benal vs M/S. Icici Prudential Life Insurance ... on 16 October, 2012

It was further argued that the policyholder and the Life Assured, being educated individuals, had signed the proposal form and customer declaration after being fully informed of the product name, policy term, premium payment term and benefits, thereby negating any allegation of mis-selling or coercion. Insurance being a contract governed by its terms, no relief beyond the policy conditions could be granted. In the absence of any deficiency in service, the SA No. 31 of 2025 & 14 connected matters Page 14 of 22 directions to refund premium with interest and compensation amounted to rewriting the contract and were legally unsustainable. He sought that the findings of State Commission be set aside and relied on Mohan Lal Benal Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP No. 2870/2012 Decided on 16.10.2012); Harish Kumar Chadha Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Decided on 07.10.2013 in RP No. 3271 of 2013); Shrikant Murlidhar Apte vs. LIC of India, RP no. 634 of 2012 decided on 02.05.2013; Kishor Chandrakant Rathod Vs. The Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr (Decided by the NCDRC on 21.05.2014 in RP No.3390 of 2013); Prema & Ors Vs. LIC of India, IV (2006) CPJ239 (NC); A.V. Cottex Limited Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, [2017 (2) CPR 696 (NC)]; Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. V/s Garg Sons International [2013 (I) Scale410)] in support of his arguments.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Prema And Ors. vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India ... on 3 July, 2006

It was further argued that the policyholder and the Life Assured, being educated individuals, had signed the proposal form and customer declaration after being fully informed of the product name, policy term, premium payment term and benefits, thereby negating any allegation of mis-selling or coercion. Insurance being a contract governed by its terms, no relief beyond the policy conditions could be granted. In the absence of any deficiency in service, the SA No. 31 of 2025 & 14 connected matters Page 14 of 22 directions to refund premium with interest and compensation amounted to rewriting the contract and were legally unsustainable. He sought that the findings of State Commission be set aside and relied on Mohan Lal Benal Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP No. 2870/2012 Decided on 16.10.2012); Harish Kumar Chadha Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Decided on 07.10.2013 in RP No. 3271 of 2013); Shrikant Murlidhar Apte vs. LIC of India, RP no. 634 of 2012 decided on 02.05.2013; Kishor Chandrakant Rathod Vs. The Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr (Decided by the NCDRC on 21.05.2014 in RP No.3390 of 2013); Prema & Ors Vs. LIC of India, IV (2006) CPJ239 (NC); A.V. Cottex Limited Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, [2017 (2) CPR 696 (NC)]; Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. V/s Garg Sons International [2013 (I) Scale410)] in support of his arguments.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1