Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: andhra pradesh state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc hyderabad Year: 2011 Page 6 of about 55 results (0.039 seconds)

Apr 18 2011 (TRI)

United India Insurnace Company Ltd. Vs. Gurunadha Swamy Rice Industrie ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Apr-18-2011

..... . while so on 28.3.2007 one of the feeder ejectors (84 nos) failed and was not working and the same was informed to service engineer which has annual maintenance contract (amc). he inspected the machine and opined that three feeders were failed and asked to replace immediately. the said fact was informed to the insurance company enclosing the inspection report .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2011 (TRI)

M. Narayana Vs. the Divisional Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Mar-22-2011

..... keeping in view the response by a reasonable and prudent man. every decision taken by the service provider has to be tested on the anvil of the terms of the contract unless the occurrence or the information given by the insurer is found to be afflicted with a mala fide or falsehood, the claim should be accepted. ?? even otherwise the stipulation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2011 (TRI)

Mittapalli Amaralinga Ramakrishnaiah Vs. the S.B.i. Life Insurance Com ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Mar-16-2011

..... said decision the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the dist. forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. exclusion clause is not part and parcel of contract. due to erroneous interpretation of terms the claim was dismissed which in fact he was entitled to, and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed. 9) the point that arises ..... health declaration in ex. b2. therefore it cannot be said that she was not aware of the terms. even otherwise she ought to have noticed the terms, being part of contract. 11) it is not in dispute that the policyholder died within 45 days of commencement of risk. we reproduce condition no. 6 under the heading ??benefit printed under schedule-ii .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2011 (TRI)

The Chief Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Y. Ve ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Mar-09-2011

..... is not as if he did not run business from premises noted in the policy. he ought to have got the premises insured if there was any subsequent change. the contract of insurance is based on utmost good faith. whatever he mentioned in the proposal form it was followed and the policy was given. now he cannot claim that correction was ..... in the premises situated at d.no. 12-610 to 12-612. 12) it is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties know. the insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2011 (TRI)

Mahanthi Lakshmana Rao and Another Vs. State Bank of India Rep. by Bra ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Dec-12-2011

..... maturity of the policy is 6-09-2021. no paid up value or maturity benefits are available under the policy except the exemption under section 80 of the income tax act,1881. after the insurance policy is issued , premium cannot be refunded nor policy can be cancelled. without disclosing the pendency of complaint before the banking ombudsman, the appellants filed the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //