TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the insurer was liable for the loss claimed under the policy covering STFI perils, and whether the policy issued for the relevant period was a renewal on identical terms or a fresh contract permitting exclusion of STFI perils.
Analysis: The policy for the relevant period related to a different location from the earlier policy, and was treated as a fresh contract of insurance rather than a mere renewal on identical terms. The policy expressly excluded STFI risk, and the refunded premium for STFI cover was credited to the insured's account. Under Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, risk is assumed only on receipt of premium, and a refund arising from alteration or cancellation of terms is contemplated by the statute. The contract of insurance has to be enforced according to its terms, and the Court cannot rewrite it by importing a cover that was expressly excluded. The appellants were found to have been furnished with a copy of the policy and to have accepted the refund without protest, so they could not disavow knowledge of the exclusion. The precedent relating to wrongful refusal to renew a mediclaim policy was held inapplicable because the present case involved issuance of a new policy with altered terms.
Conclusion: The insurer was not liable for the STFI-covered loss, and the exclusion in the policy was enforceable against the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
