Choose a Category... Advertisements Airlines / Air Cargo Banking / Finance Compensation Consumer Definition Defective Goods Education Electricity Housing Insurance Interim Orders Jurisdiction Medical Negligence Others Railways

Hit and Run Scheme The compensation payable for victims in 'hit and run' out of the scheme fund under Section 161 has been enhanced to Rs. 2 lakhs in case of death, and Rs. 50,000/- in case of bodily injury, from Rs.25,000/- and Rs.12,500/- respectively. Also read - Hit-And-Run Cases : Provisions Giving Increased Compensation To Come Into Effect From April 1, 2022...

SELLING PRICE OF PACKED WATER BOTTLE IN RESTAURANTS /HOTELS It often happens that while placing order for consumable food,service boy asks you if you want aqua water or mineral water. Mineral water for them means sealed bottled water. Service boy brings you refrigerated cooled bottle with tumbler for pouring it though do not open for you. Customer often says –how can you charge more than MRP. Now what is the law on this point is the question...

Glaring changes in Consumer Protection Act 2019 PART-111 Legal Changes...

Glaring changes in Consumer Protection Act 2019 Part-11 Procedural Changes...

Glaring changes in Consumer Protection Act 2019 (Part-1) Structural Changes...

“The National Commission shall, in the disposal of any complaints or any proceedings before it, have the power of a civil court and can direct the parties to disclose the name and other particulars of treating doctor if not known to the complainant.” · “So far as the law with regard to the non-joinder of necessary party under Code of Civil Procedure, Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is concerned, no suit shall fail because of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties. Even if the concerned doctor and the nursing staff who were looking after the deceased have not been impleaded as opposite parties, it cannot result in dismissal of the original petition as a whole.”...

SC further observed “The specific condition in the policy was that in case the loan amount exceeds Rs.7.5 lacs the medical examination was compulsory. That if the medical examination was compulsory for such cases it should have been done along with filing of the proposal form before the payment of the premium. If the proposal was not accepted for any reason the premium would have been credited to the account of the proposer. The premium has not been refunded. From this, it is clear that the insurance company had not rejected the proposal.”...

“If at all the Parliament while repealing and replacing the 1986 Act with the 2019 Act had intended to give a meaning to the term “service” different from the one given by the Supreme Court, such intention ought to have been reflected in clear words by a specific exclusion of ‘health care’ from the purview of the 2019 Act. While construing a statute, what has not been said is equally important as what has been said.”...

That the insurance contract being a contract of utmost good faith, is a two-way door. The standards of conduct as expected under the utmost good faith obligation should be met by either party to such contract. · That in the instant case the condition precedent for acceptance of the premium was the medical examination. It would be logical for the insurance company to accept the premium based on the medical examination and not otherwise. Therefore, by the very fact that they accepted the premium waived the condition precedent of medical examination. · That the rejection of the policy must be made in a reasonable time so as to be fair and in consonance with the good faith standards. In the case, it could not be held that such enormous delay was reasonable.With reference to the facts of the present case, the Court remarked that the premium was paid in 2008. That it was only in 2011 that the respondent insurance company informed the appellant that the policy was not accepted by them. Dr Prem Lata...

But Supreme Court did not agree to he contention of Insurance company and concluded- 1. The insurance contract being a contract of utmost good faith, is a two-way door. The standards of conduct as expected under the utmost good faith obligation should be met by either party to such contract. 2. The condition precedent for acceptance of the premium was the medical examination. It would be logical for the insurance company to accept the premium based on the medical examination and not otherwise. Therefore, by the very fact that they accepted the premium waived the condition precedent of medical examination. 3. The rejection of the policy must be made in a reasonable time so as to be fair and in consonance with the good faith standards. In the case, it could not be held that such enormous delay was reasonable.With reference to the facts of the present case, the Court remarked that the premium was paid in 2008. That it was only in 2011 that the respondent insurance company informed the appellant that the policy was not accepted by them. Supreme court made a law by this judgment that Insurance company is equally under obligation to follow their terms and rules while issuing the policy ,only then they should expect insured to follow rules . In case they ignored some procedure ,they are bound to approve the claim...

Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next