<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (7) TMI 1375 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301593</link>
    <description>In a mediclaim contract, the insured must make full and truthful disclosure of facts specifically asked in the proposal form. Non-disclosure of pre-existing diabetes and chronic renal failure, where the insured knew the true medical condition, was treated as suppression of a material fact because it would influence a prudent insurer&#039;s assessment of risk. Repudiation of the claim was therefore justified. The Court also noted that although the National Commission wrongly referred to concurrent findings, remand was unnecessary because the claim failed on merits due to fraudulent suppression and fresh consideration would serve no useful purpose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2025 10:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1375 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301593</link>
      <description>In a mediclaim contract, the insured must make full and truthful disclosure of facts specifically asked in the proposal form. Non-disclosure of pre-existing diabetes and chronic renal failure, where the insured knew the true medical condition, was treated as suppression of a material fact because it would influence a prudent insurer&#039;s assessment of risk. Repudiation of the claim was therefore justified. The Court also noted that although the National Commission wrongly referred to concurrent findings, remand was unnecessary because the claim failed on merits due to fraudulent suppression and fresh consideration would serve no useful purpose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>