#Burden Of Proof

The Delhi State Consumer Commission upheld a ₹2.7 lakh health insurance claim, holding that a mere history of diabetes and cerebrovascular accident - without recent hospitalisation proximate to policy inception - cannot trigger the pre-existing disease exclusion. The insurer bears the burden of proving the policyholder's knowing concealment, and failure to physically supply policy terms and conditions constitutes a deficiency in service.

The Uttarakhand State CDRC overturned a Rs 9 lakh medical negligence award, holding that expert evidence is required and mere perception insufficient. It affects patients under the CPA 1986, stressing need for medical expert testimony in negligence claims.

The Delhi State CDRC awarded compensation, holding the insurer liable under Mediclaim policy clause 4.2 for failing to prove exclusion despite continuous coverage, and reinforced that insurers must substantiate exclusions to protect policyholders.

The Gujarat High Court ruled insurer liability starts on premium receipt, not policy effective date, overturning the Tribunal’s denial of compensation for a 1990 accident. It modified the MACT award to Rs 83,000 with 12% interest, payable within eight weeks.

The Madras High Court upheld the trial court’s specific performance decree, holding that an unregistered resale agreement is enforceable under the proviso to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the party alleging forgery bears the burden of proof. It further held that the suit was not barred by limitation.

CESTAT Kolkata set aside the gold confiscation, ruling that concealment and missing documents alone do not prove smuggling without foreign origin proof. This clarifies the customs burden under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act 1962, impacting traders.

Delhi HC held that under Sections 101 and 111 Evidence Act, the burden to prove good faith in a fiduciary transaction lies on the party in confidence. It cancelled a daughter’s sale deed for inadequate consideration, restoring possession to legal heirs.

The WB CDRC upheld HDFC Life’s appeal dismissal, holding that an insurer must prove material non disclosure under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 to reject a life insurance claim, clarifying the burden on insurers and safeguarding policyholders.

The Delhi HC held that a rent agreement must be proved by the tenant's signature under Section 67 Evidence Act, not by mere notarisation. The ruling impacts landlords seeking arrears and mesne profits, upholding Rs.87,000 dues based on rent increase.

Once the prosecution proves Section 304-B IPC ingredients, Section 113-B Evidence Act shifts the burden to the accused to disprove dowry death; the Jharkhand HC upheld the conviction as the accused failed to rebut.

The Punjab State CDRC set aside the District Commission’s medical negligence ruling, holding that expert evidence is required to prove liability and that the burden to furnish it lies on the complainant under CPA 2019.

A partition suit is not maintainable if plaintiffs lack actual or constructive possession and do not seek possession relief, the Delhi High Court ruled, placing the burden on challengers of registered documents to prove invalidity.

The Supreme Court held the Entitlement Rules 2008 invalid, same as the 1982 Rules, leaving presumption of attributability intact and burden of proof on employer for disability pension claims within 15 years, affecting armed forces and government.

The NCDRC ruled that third-party cheques cannot constitute a refund without proof of homebuyer authorization, setting aside a State Commission order that had limited relief to refund. The Commission ordered specific performance with a tiered remedy: possession, an alternative flat, or refund at 18% contractual interest plus 21% penal interest for default within three months.

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation under Section 20(3)(ii) of the Minimum Wages Act cannot exceed the statutory limit of Rs 10, setting aside the Authority's award of 50% compensation on overtime arrears. The court substituted the excess compensation with simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of claim accrual. This clarifies the ceiling on penal compensation for minimum wage violations, impacting employers and workers in sectors like private security.