Legal Reference Library

In NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs M/S.PATTU AGENCIES, the appeal was preferred before  Hon'ble Kerala High Court against order of the trial court with the primary object of the insurer being that the change of address of the insured property had not been intimated to the insurer. The Hon'ble High Court rejecting the ground for disallowing the claim held "It is true that a policy can be avoided for misrepresentation or non-disclosure. However, the misrepresentation or non-disclosure should be a material one and it must have induced the Insurance Company to make the policy in favour of the insured. The non-disclosure or misrepresentation should have induced the insurer to enter into the contract. There must be a specific case that there was inducement to issue a policy relying on the facts disclosed by the insurer and that there was non-disclosure or misrepresentation. The test is whether the insurer would have made a different decision had the facts been correctly disclos...

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Branch Manager, LIC of India v. Jyothi Sudhir MANU/CF/0511/2016 20.10.2016 Consumer Effect of mis-representation on contract is same as that of non-disclosure; it affords ground for avoiding contract to aggrieved party In facts of present case, Husband of complainant obtained an insurance policy namely Money Plus Plan from Petitioner corporation, insuring his life to extent of Rs. 4 lacs. In the proposal form submitted by him, the assured was required to answer certain questions with respect to the state of his health. Assured took a specific stand in proposal form submitted by him that he had not consulted any medical practitioner requiring treatment for more than a week and he was not suffering from Diabetes, High BP or any other disease. A perusal of discharge summary issued by Yenepoya Hospital, would show that, assured was admitted in aforesaid hospital on 13th July, 2007 and his ailment was diagnosed as Hypertension, D...

In a significant judgment that will change the way beneficiaries of multiple plot allotment are prosecuted, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that misrepresentation for allotment of a second flat will not amount to cheating if it can be verified and detected. “Even if it is assumed that the prosecution story is correct and a wrong representation was made, the housing board had the means to verify whether any property stood in the name of the accused or her husband or any other family member. It being so, even the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 420 of the IPC are not made out,” the High Court has ruled. The judgment by Justice Kuldip Singh, likely to have a bearing on the ongoing HUDA multiple plot allotment cases, came on a plea of the UT against Savinder Jeet Kaur. The Administration had challenged a judgment dated August 18, 2015, passed by the UT Sessions Judge, vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated August 5, 2014, pass...