Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.56 seconds)
Ms Sbi General Insurance Co Ltd vs Rama Rani on 28 October, 2024 cites

M/S Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Tata Aig Generla Insurance Company Ltd on 9 November, 2022

21. With regard to repudiation of the genuine claim of the insured, the District Commission had explicitly dealt in its findings by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "M/s Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company ltd. & Ors.", Civil Appeal No.8249 of 2022, decided on 09.11.2022, wherein it has been held in para No.39 "Non-compliance of Clauses (3) and (4) of the IRDA Regulation, 2002 preceded by unilateral inclusion, and thereafter followed by the execution of the contract, receiving benefits, and repudiation after knowing F.A.No.706 of 2023 12 that it was entered into for a basement, would certainly be an act of unfair trade practice. This view is fortified by the finding that the exclusion clause is an unfair term, going against the very object of the contract, making it otherwise un-executable from its inception."
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 3 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

General Assurance Society Ltd vs Chandumull Jain And Anr on 7 February, 1966

Moreover, the District Commission had not given any finding as to how the repudiation letter dated 30.05.2022 was wrong or illegal. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the Insurance Policy started from 04.09.2021 and as averred in para No.4 of the Complaint, the patient fell ill on 19.11.2021. The symptoms of the critical illness emerged within 78 days only i.e. before 90 days. Learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments i.e. 1) "Vikram Greentech Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.", II (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), 2) "General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain & Anr.", AIR 1996 SC 644, 3) "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandra Lal", IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC), in support of his oral arguments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 345 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs M/S.Harchand Rai Chandan Lal on 24 September, 2004

Moreover, the District Commission had not given any finding as to how the repudiation letter dated 30.05.2022 was wrong or illegal. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the Insurance Policy started from 04.09.2021 and as averred in para No.4 of the Complaint, the patient fell ill on 19.11.2021. The symptoms of the critical illness emerged within 78 days only i.e. before 90 days. Learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments i.e. 1) "Vikram Greentech Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.", II (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), 2) "General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain & Anr.", AIR 1996 SC 644, 3) "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandra Lal", IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC), in support of his oral arguments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 320 - A K Mathur - Full Document

M/S Modern Insulators Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 22 February, 2000

20. Moreover, the Appellant/OP No.1 in its evidence failed to produce any receipt of insured to show that the terms and conditions of the policy had been supplied/delivered to him. The onus to prove this fact is on the Appellant/OP No.1. It is the duty of the Insurance Company to explain all the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy to the insured. It is settled principle of law that the insured is not bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in case the same are not supplied to them. We are fortified with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.", (2000) 2 SCC (734), wherein it has been specifically held that the Exclusion Clauses, which are not explained to the insured, are not binding to the insured and are required to be ignored. We are of the view that unexplained or unnoticed exclusion clauses would not be binding upon the insured.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 337 - Full Document
1