Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme 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