Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder 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