Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Insurance Claims Dispute: Consumer Protection Act Revision Petition Upheld by NCDRC: Second Surveyor’s Appointment Under Scrutiny

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent landmark decision, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled in favor of upholding a revision petition under the Consumer Protection Act, shedding light on the assessment of insurance claims and the appointment of a second surveyor. The ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to established guidelines and legal principles in insurance claim disputes.

The NCDRC’s observation in the judgment stated, “Second surveyor appointment should have valid reasons and must specify cogent reasons for not accepting the first surveyor’s report.” This observation highlights the need for insurers to provide clear justifications when opting for a second surveyor’s assessment in claim disputes.

The case revolved around an insurance company’s challenge to the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission regarding a claim dispute. The insurer argued that the State Commission had erred in assessing the loss and appointing a second surveyor. However, the NCDRC found no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the State Commission’s order, resulting in the dismissal of the revision petition.

Furthermore, the judgment emphasized the limited jurisdiction of revision petitions, stating, “Revisional powers to be exercised only when there is a prima facie jurisdictional error.” This underscores the importance of careful consideration and adherence to the established legal framework when pursuing revisions under the Consumer Protection Act.

The decision serves as a significant precedent in insurance claim disputes, providing clarity on the role and justification for appointing a second surveyor. Insurance companies are now expected to follow the guidelines provided by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDA) and relevant judicial precedents when navigating similar claim disputes.

This ruling reinforces the need for transparency and adherence to legal standards in the assessment of insurance claims, ensuring that consumers and insurers alike receive fair and just treatment in dispute resolution.

In response to the judgment, legal experts have welcomed the clarity it brings to the assessment of insurance claims and the appointment of second surveyors. It is expected that this decision will have a lasting impact on future insurance claim disputes and promote fairness and accountability in the industry.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2023

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs M/S. CUREWEL PACKAGING PVT. LTD.

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/16-Oct-2023-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-curewal-packaging-.pdf"]

Latest Legal News