The term Non-disclosure of Material Fact has not been defined in Insurance Act. Insurance companies were rejecting the claims of the consumers on the plea of pre existing –disease every now and then.

Insurance companies were rejecting the claims of the consumers on the plea of pre-existing disease in almost every case  which means claimant had not disclosed the ailment he was having at the time of filling up the prescribed form. Defining pre-existing disease in insurance matter in the matter of Asha Rani Goyal  v Life Insurance Corporation .in the year 2000, three criteria were set up for coming to the conclusion that the claimant had disease pre-existing as here under:

1) One must have concealed the fact

2) The fact so concealed should be of such importance that could affect the policy co. to take decision whether to issue policy or not.

3) The person so insured must be aware of that particular disease

And now unless it is proved that claimant was aware of the particular disease and had taken medicine or consultation for that particular disease his claim cannot be rejected merely due to such symptoms.

Ref. Asha Rani Goyal v Life Insurance Corporation .in the year 2000, SC

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act – A bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice RG Ketkar passed the judgment after hearing all parties in the matter and upheld the provisions of the new Act that came into effect on May 1, 2017.

In September 2018 after several petitions challenging RERA were filed in high courts across the country, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in other courts and suggested that the Bombay High Court hear its RERA cases first.

Builders’ Contention-

Builders had challenged Sections 3 to 19 of the Act. Regarding regulating the transactions of ongoing projects and compelling promoters to get the project registered under RERA from the date of notification.

Petitioners submitted that, the promoter has been given a liberty to declare the tenure during which the project will be completed while getting the project registered .However the extension of registration granted under Section 5 by the authority is restricted to a period of one year which is unreasonable and an arbitrary provision. It has not been taken into consideration the circumstances which are beyond the control of the promoter while carrying out the developmental work. The Petitioner prayed that extension of registration under Section 6 shall not be restricted only to the force majeure circumstances provided under the proviso to Section 6 but all other factors also

A bench of Justices Naresh Patil and Rajesh Ketkar pronounced its judgment on a bunch of petitions filed by real estate developers and individual plot owners, all challenging the constitutional validity of the Act .It was held-

“RERA is not a law relating to only regulatory control the promoters (developers), but its objective is to develop the real estate sector, particularly the incomplete projects across the country. It is also crucial to protect the interest of flat buyers across the country,”

.Justice Patil opined

“The problems are enormous. It’s time to take a step forward to fulfil dreams of the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, to wipe every tear from every eye”

The authorities must also closely monitor the implementation of the Act. The bench said while the bench concurred with the state and the Union government’s arguments.

“We are conscious of the fact that the actual implementation of RERA needs to be closely monitored in the years to come,” the bench opined.