STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL No | : | 250 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 13.06.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 08.10.2013 |
1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No24-25, Sector 8-C,Chandigarh
2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadye Marg, Opp. Race Course, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034, through its Managing Director, through its Legal Manager Sh. Inderjit Singh.
Versus
Dr. Gursharan Singh R/o House No.147, Ground Floor, Sector 45-A, Near Akship School, Chandigarh, U.T., 160047 (Father of deceased Amitoj Singh).
….Respondent/Complainant.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE:
Argued by:
Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent alongwith the respondent, in person.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
“14.
2. GovernmentMedicalCollege
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. GovernmentMedicalCollegeChandigarh SilverOakHospital 13.
Sr. No. | Reason | Remarks |
1 | Pre Existing Disease | As per Part II of the schedule exclusion 3.1 – The claim arising on account of or in connection with any Pre-existing illness shall be excluded from the scope of cover under the policy. Hence rejected. |
2. | Others | INCONTESTABILITY AND DUTY OF DISCLOSURE – THE POLICY SHALL BE NULL AND VOID AND NO BENEIT SHALL BE PAYABLE IN THE EVENT OF UNTRUE OR INCORRECT STATEMENT, MISREORENSENTATION, MISCESCRIPTION |
14.
“3.1
3.2
15.
16.
17.
18.
19. , it was held by the National Commission that as per the settled law, the onus to prove that the Insured was suffering from preexisting disease was on the Insurer, which, in the instant case, the appellants/Opposite Parties failed to discharge. Further in,,, it was held by the National Commission that having used specific grounds, for repudiation of claim, it was necessary for the Insurer to produce supporting evidence.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Pronounced.
8th.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.250 of 2013)
Argued by:
Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent alongwith the respondent, in person.
Dated the 8th
ORDER
Alongwith the appeal, an application, for condonation of delay of 53 days, has been filed, by the applicants/appellants/Opposite Parties.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER | Sd/- (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT |
Ad
