Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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"]

Similar News