Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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