Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)
Manmohan Nanda vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. . on 6 December, 2021 cites

Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Smt. G.M. Channabasemma on 6 December, 1990

(b) In LIC of India v. Smt. G.M. Channabasemma (1991) 1 SCC 357, it was observed that there is an obligation upon the assured to disclose all material facts which may be relevant to the insurer but after issuing a policy, the burden of proving that the insured had made false representations and suppressed material facts is on the insurer. In the said case, it was held that the physician’s statement did not lead to a conclusion that the respondent therein was influenced by a serious disease for a long time. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties therein, it was observed that the insurer had failed to prove that the insured was suffering from diabetes or tuberculosis at the time of filling up the proposals for the policies or that he had given any false answer in his statements or suppressed any material fact which he was under a duty to disclose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 105 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Hari Om Agarwal vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 17 September, 2007

d) Hari Om Agarwal v. Oriental Insurance Co. 2007 (98) DRJ 246, is a decision on a mediclaim policy. In the said case, it was held that the insured had suffered from diabetes as well as hypertension at the time of submission of the proposal. The insured was advised to undergo ECG which he did. Thereafter, the proposal was accepted and the cover note was issued. Clause 4.1 of the policy therein came up for interpretation. It was observed that hypertension and diabetes could lead to a host of ailments such as stroke, cardiac disease, renal 38 failure, liver disorder, depending upon various factors. Such ailments can equally arise in non­diabetics and those without hypertension. Giving a contextual interpretation to clause 4.1 of the policy, it was observed that such an interpretation was necessary to avoid rendering a medical cover meaningless. Hence the main purpose rule was pressed into service by holding that clause 4.1 of the said policy could not be used to override the primary liability of the insurer.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 31 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Canara Bank vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 6 February, 2020

21. Referring to the specific terms of the insurance policy, it was contented by the learned Senior Counsel for appellant that an insurance policy should be given a purposive interpretation in favour of the insured­ appellant herein. The insurance policy and its 14 components must be read as a whole and given a meaning which furthers the expectations of parties and also of the realities of the insurance business vide Canara Bank v. United India Insurance Co. ­ (2020) 3 SCC 455.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 32 - D Gupta - Full Document

Sahebzada Mohammad Kamgar Shah vs Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deoand ... on 21 April, 1960

d) In Md. Kamgarh Shah v. Jagdish Chandra AIR 1960 SC 953, it was observed that where there is an ambiguity it is the duty of the court to look at all the parts of the document to ascertain what was really intended by the parties. But even here the rule has to be borne in mind that the document being the grantor's document it has to be interpreted strictly against him and in favour of the grantee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 87 - K C Gupta - Full Document

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

Answers given by the proposer to the two questions were "Sound Health" and "Nil" respectively. It would be beyond anybody's comprehension that the insured was not aware of the state of his health and the fact that he was suffering from diabetes as also chronic Renal failure, more so when he was stated to be on regular haemodialysis. There can hardly be any scope for doubt that the information required in the afore­ extracted questions was on material facts and answers given to those questions were definitely factors which would have influenced and guided the respondent ­ Insurance Company to enter into the Contract of Mediclaim Insurance with the insured.” Learned counsel for the respondent insurer has also relied upon Satwant Kaur Sandhu supra and has emphasised on para 20 of the said judgment extracted above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 608 - D K Jain - Full Document
1   2 Next