Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.67 seconds)
Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Illa Anjamma on 26 October, 2023 cites

Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Smt.Asha Goel & Anr on 13 December, 2000

7.   The Ld. Counsel for Petitioners has argued that it was the representations and assurance of the deceased life assured that the contents of the Proposal Form were true, correct and complete and so the subsequently Policy No. 684346260 was issued on 03.07.2006; That on 31.03.2008, the policy lapsed on account of default in payment of the premium. The deceased life assured applied for revival of the policy by filling up the Revival Form dated 31.03.2008, and after giving information and declaration sought thereunder. It was mentioned in the form that if any untrue averment is made, then the policy shall be absolutely null and void, and all the monies which have been paid for the policy shall be forfeited; That the State Commission failed to appreciate the ratio of "Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod" (supra); That the Ld. Fora did not appreciate Clause 6 of the Policy condition which states that there shall be forfeiture of the monies paid, and the Policy shall be void in case of incorrect information being furnished; That the Ld. Fora failed to appreciate that a contract of insurance is governed by 'Uberrima Fides', which means that every material fact and information sought must be disclosed; The Ld. Counsel for Petitioners cited the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Satwant Kaur Sandhu" (supra), "P.C. Chacko" (supra), and "LIC v. Asha Goel" (supra) in support of their contentions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 333 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod on 24 April, 2019

11.    Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rekhaben Naresh Bhai Rathod, AIR 2019 SC 2023 ".  In this case also, the concerned life insured had held a previous Insurance Policy, the existence of which was not disclosed while obtaining a fresh Policy, and the Insurance claim subsequently raised by his spouse after his death was repudiated by the Insurance Company.  The Complaint was however allowed by the Ld. State Commission and its decision was even affirmed by this Commission. The Hon'ble Apex Court however set aside both the decisions and consequently also dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant in the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following observations-
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 115 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

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

7.   The Ld. Counsel for Petitioners has argued that it was the representations and assurance of the deceased life assured that the contents of the Proposal Form were true, correct and complete and so the subsequently Policy No. 684346260 was issued on 03.07.2006; That on 31.03.2008, the policy lapsed on account of default in payment of the premium. The deceased life assured applied for revival of the policy by filling up the Revival Form dated 31.03.2008, and after giving information and declaration sought thereunder. It was mentioned in the form that if any untrue averment is made, then the policy shall be absolutely null and void, and all the monies which have been paid for the policy shall be forfeited; That the State Commission failed to appreciate the ratio of "Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod" (supra); That the Ld. Fora did not appreciate Clause 6 of the Policy condition which states that there shall be forfeiture of the monies paid, and the Policy shall be void in case of incorrect information being furnished; That the Ld. Fora failed to appreciate that a contract of insurance is governed by 'Uberrima Fides', which means that every material fact and information sought must be disclosed; The Ld. Counsel for Petitioners cited the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Satwant Kaur Sandhu" (supra), "P.C. Chacko" (supra), and "LIC v. Asha Goel" (supra) in support of their contentions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 351 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rubi(Chandra) Dutta vs M/S United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 18 March, 2011

In the present case, both the Fora have concurrently held against the LIC for wrongful repudiation of claim; That it is not the case of the LIC that the death of the assured was due to suicide which is not covered under the policy; That before issuing of the policy or at the time of revival, the LIC would  itself take a medical test of the assured from their panel Doctors; The Ld. Counsel for Respondents has cited the judgments of this Hon'ble Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rubi Chandra Dutta v. United India Insurance Co., 2011 (11) SCC 269"; "Galada Power & Telecommunications v. United India Insurance Co., 2016 (14) SCC 161"; "Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel v. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd., 2016 (8) SCC 286"; "B.M. Reliance LIC Co. Ltd. v. Usha Soni, (R.P. No. 1999 of 2019)" in support of their contentions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 420 - D Verma - Full Document

M/S Galada Power & Telecomun.Ltd. vs United India Insurnce Co.Ltd. on 28 July, 2016

In the present case, both the Fora have concurrently held against the LIC for wrongful repudiation of claim; That it is not the case of the LIC that the death of the assured was due to suicide which is not covered under the policy; That before issuing of the policy or at the time of revival, the LIC would  itself take a medical test of the assured from their panel Doctors; The Ld. Counsel for Respondents has cited the judgments of this Hon'ble Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rubi Chandra Dutta v. United India Insurance Co., 2011 (11) SCC 269"; "Galada Power & Telecommunications v. United India Insurance Co., 2016 (14) SCC 161"; "Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel v. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd., 2016 (8) SCC 286"; "B.M. Reliance LIC Co. Ltd. v. Usha Soni, (R.P. No. 1999 of 2019)" in support of their contentions.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 11 - Cited by 72 - D Misra - Full Document

Lourdes Sty.Snehanjali Girls ... vs M/S H & R Jhonson(I) Ltd.& Ors on 2 August, 2016

In the present case, both the Fora have concurrently held against the LIC for wrongful repudiation of claim; That it is not the case of the LIC that the death of the assured was due to suicide which is not covered under the policy; That before issuing of the policy or at the time of revival, the LIC would  itself take a medical test of the assured from their panel Doctors; The Ld. Counsel for Respondents has cited the judgments of this Hon'ble Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rubi Chandra Dutta v. United India Insurance Co., 2011 (11) SCC 269"; "Galada Power & Telecommunications v. United India Insurance Co., 2016 (14) SCC 161"; "Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel v. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd., 2016 (8) SCC 286"; "B.M. Reliance LIC Co. Ltd. v. Usha Soni, (R.P. No. 1999 of 2019)" in support of their contentions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 199 - V G Gowda - Full Document
1