In this case, the policyholder`s insurance claim resulted from a deterioration of the stock, which covered the stock of potatoes stored by the insured in a cold store. The expert noted that the application should be rejected in view of the exceptions to the Directive. Thus, the insurer denied any liability. The Supreme Court has debated the role of exemptions in an insurance policy, holding that an insurer seeks to compensate the insured only for losses caused by certain risks that occur under normal conditions and whose impact is statistically estimated. The Court noted that exceptions are introduced in order to exonerate the insurer`s liability for which it would otherwise be liable. Except that clauses are inserted ex abundanti cautela in insurance policies to inform the insured that losses attributable to exonerated causes are not eligible for compensation. Since the exception in this case was neither overly broad nor contrary to the main purpose of the insurance policy, the claim was correctly rejected by the insurer, taking into account the specific exceptions provided for in the policy. In the present case, Ms Rathod`s husband had taken out life insurance with Reliance Life Insurance in September 2009. However, Ms. Rathod had purchased a life insurance policy with Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in July 2009.
Confidence. Following the death of her husband, Ms. Rathod filed a police application in February 2010. As Reliance made a decision on this claim, Max informed it of the previous insurance. As Ms. Rathod did not disclose this information, Reliance rejected her request. Ashok Kumar bought a used car in November 2006, which was insured by the former owner of New India Insurance. Kumar did not inform the insurance company of the transfer of registration or have the insurance policy transferred to his name. When Kumar filed a lawsuit for the stolen car in March 2007, his claim was rejected on the grounds that the claim was not in his name.
Kumar filed a lawsuit and the Delhi District Commission and the State Commission ruled in his favour. New India Insurance appealed to the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission, which ruled in its favor and found that Irda regulations require the insurance company to be notified of the transfer of the vehicle within 14 days, otherwise, the insurance company is not required to reimburse the claim. The Supreme Court rejected the insurer`s argument that the consumer was required to inquire about the terms of the policy and any changes to the terms and conditions. The legal situation established was that an insurer was required to disclose any change in the terms of the insurance contract at the start-up stage or, as in the present case, at the renewal stage. The insurer cannot understand that the insured was obliged to insure himself if a new time limit had been introduced. In the present case, the Court held that health or health insurance coverage becomes decisive with age; the policyholder is more likely to need coverage; Thus, if there are new limitations of liability, the insured, if well advised and able to afford them, can apply for greater coverage or use another type of policy. In addition, most policies – health and health insurance plans are no exception – are in standard form. Someone looking for life insurance/personal risk coverage, such as accident insurance or health insurance, has little choice but to accept the offer of certain standard term contracts. Therefore, citing the IRDA (health insurance) regulation of 2016, the Court concluded that it is the insurer`s duty to inform each policyholder of any material changes that would affect their choice of product.
Many changes have been adopted by insurance companies over the years after consumer protection courts ruled against them. However, a claim can also be granted on humanitarian grounds, even if the insurance company is right, as in the case of United India Assurance v. Laxamma, in which the defendant had deposited a bouncing bouncing bouncing bounc. When the insured died, the court ordered the company to pay the amount of the claim, stating that it had not been informed of the cheque before the claim was made. Mr. Parmar took out burglary and burglary insurance from June 5, 2003 to June 4, 2003. June 2004 by New India Assurance for Rs. 20 lakh. Meanwhile, there was a robbery in Mr.
Parmar`s warehouse. He reported the theft to police and shared the information with New India Insurance. Your expert visited the site and presented his preliminary report. New India Assurance claimed there was no forced access because a double key was used to open the camp. It rejected the request. Can the Court give a liberal interpretation in the interpretation of the concepts of insurance policy? In the third case, insurance companies will now be liable for existing damage caused by fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion as part of a fire policy. In its decision, the Supreme Court considered, among other things, the terms of the Marine Insurance Act, 1973 („Marine Insurance Act“), namely maritime adventure, maritime danger, referred to in the Marine Adventure and Oceans Policy. Section 4 of the MLI Act was found to address mixed marine and terrestrial hazards.
It allows, inter alia, to cover, by express conditions or by the use of trade, the extension of maritime policy to protect policyholders against losses in inland waters or land risks that may be associated with a voyage at sea. The Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hira Lal Ramesh Chand and Ors. 2008 (10) SCC 626, which held that „warehouse-to-warehouse“ insurance coverage means that shipments are insured not only during the sea voyage, but also beyond, as specified in the policy, i.e. during transit from the shipper`s warehouse to the consignee`s warehouse. Since in this case there was a warehouse-to-warehouse transit clause and certain other provisions stipulating that the policy covered both maritime and other risks, the policy was considered to be a transport insurance policy covering travel, transit, transport and warehousing risks. It is not determinative whether the insurable event occurred during the trip; The focus is more on the type of coverage. The district commission dismissed Ms. Rathod`s complaint for failure to disclose information. However, state and national commissions upheld the appeal, stating that „the insured`s failure to disclose a previous insurance policy would not affect the opinion of a prudent insurer.“ On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this decision.
It concluded that the failure to disclose a previously purchased insurance policy removed an important fact that would allow Reliance to dismiss the claim. Giving an incorrect response or not disclosing material facts in the proposal form repeals the directive because it violates „good faith.“ .