JUST LAW BLOGS by Mohit Sadana

  Garima Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in the Delhi High Court revolves around cancer treatment and insurance claims. 1 min read: - Facts: Diagnosis & Treatment: The petitioner, Garima Singh , was diagnosed with Stage-IV breast cancer in 2021. The cancer spread to the lymph nodes and lungs . She underwent Chemo-immunotherapy , a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Insurance Claim Dispute: She held a health insurance policy covering Rs. 44.5 lakhs . The insurance company refused to fully reimburse her treatment costs, citing a sub-limit of Rs. 2 lakhs for Monoclonal Antibody injections . The Insurance Ombudsman ruled in her favor , directing the insurer to pay for the treatment . But the insurance company failed to comply with the order. Legal Arguments: The cancer Patient had approached Hon’ble High Court for directing the Insurance company to comply with the order.  The petitioner argued that Chemo-immunotherapy is different from Monoclonal Antibody i...

Read Time - 2 minutes. Case Analysis: FIITJEE Ltd. vs. Mr. Rajeev Luthra Background of the Case The dispute arose when Mr. Rajeev Luthra’s daughter enrolled in FIITJEE’s two-year classroom program for CAT preparation but discontinued after two months. The reason cited was her inability to manage the intense schedule of school and coaching, resulting in academic pressure. Mr. Luthra requested a refund of ₹1,34,015, which was the entire course fee paid in advance. FIITJEE denied the refund, referring to specific clauses in the enrollment agreement stating that fees once paid were non-refundable. Key Issues Was FIITJEE justified in retaining the entire two-year course fee despite the student discontinuing after two months? Whether the non-refundable fee clause in the enrollment agreement constituted an unfair trade practice? Did FIITJEE comply with the directions set by the Supreme Court I slamic Academy of Education and another versus State of  ...

SRIKANT KUMAR VS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 1. Facts: While considering the appellant's bail application, the High Court imposed a condition that the appellant should pay Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent. The appellant challenged this condition, arguing that it was irrelevant to the bail proceedings. 2. Court’s Observation: The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant's argument and held that imposing a maintenance payment as a bail condition was not warranted. The Court emphasized that bail conditions should focus on ensuring the appellant's presence for trial, not on unrelated matters like maintenance. 3. Final Decision: The Supreme Court quashed the maintenance condition imposed by the High Court but stated that the appellant must still remain available for trial. It directed the Trial Court to set appropriate bail conditions for the appellant.