Topic
Uttarakhand Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that an insurer cannot repudiate a life insurance claim on grounds of age/occupation misstatement when the policy contains an adjustment clause (Clause 16.9) and the life assured remains eligible, awarding ₹7.5 lakh with 6% interest from the complaint date.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a cooperative society can be deregistered under Section 21A only if its original registration was obtained through a material misrepresentation, and not merely for construction irregularities discovered later. This narrows the scope of de-registration, protecting societies from punitive cancellation for compliance lapses after registration.
Uttarakhand SCDRC rules that a policyholder who voluntarily continues an insurance policy after withdrawing a free-look cancellation request cannot later claim misrepresentation or unfair trade practices. The Commission held that reliance on assurances post-withdrawal negates deficiency in service claims, setting a precedent for similar disputes.
Calcutta High Court rules that a contract termination lacking explicit reasons may still be upheld if the trial record establishes a valid ground like misrepresentation, provided the affected party had full opportunity to respond. The decision underscores that administrative actions need not always state reasons upfront if the factual matrix justifies the termination.