Skip to main content

Bank of Maharashtra asked to pay for mediclaim loss

Consumer forum decides bank's inefficiency cost man his policy

Chief of Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, VP Utpat, and Forum member SM Kumbhar have directed Bank of Maharashtra (BoM) to pay Rs16,000 to Shukrawar Peth resident who did not get mediclaim benefits owing to neglect of the Bank.

The forum asked the Bank to pay within within six weeks, Rs10,000 as compensation for the mediclaim benefits he lost, Rs5,000 for the mental agony he suffered, and Rs1,000 as suit charges, totalling Rs16,000.

Vinod Takhatmal Kothari, a resident of Shukrawar peth had moved a plaint against BoM regional office at Lokmangal in Shivajinagar on September 13, 2010, for alleged inefficiency of services.
According to Kothari’s complaint, he ran a proprietary concern named Sha Takhatmal Foujimalji Kothari and had a current account with BoM for six years. He had availed a mediclaim insurance policy from the Oriental Insurance Company 13 years ago. It was a joint policy with his wife Pista being the other member.

“I renewed the joint policy on November 5, 2009. On November 4, 2009, I had issued a cheque for Rs8,446 by way of premium of policy. On previous day that is on November 3, 2009, I had deposited a cheque for Rs 14,024, which was drawn on Union Bank of India in my current account. I was under the impression that the cheque must have been credited in my current account.

“Due to the mistake of BoM, the cheque was credited in another account and the cheque which was issued in favour of Oriental Insurance Company was dishonoured on November 7, 2009. Because of this, the insurance company cancelled the mediclaim policy I had bought. This is the bank’s inefficiency.

“Since I am a heart patient, I had been renewing the mediclaim policy for the past 13 years regularly. Under this policy, I was entitled for reimbursements of all the expenses, hospitalisation and surgical expenses. But because the policy got cancelled, I lost the security of life even after years of regular renewals. I did not get the benefit for heart disease due to a clause about pre-existing disease,” Kothari said.

In its defence, the BoM lawyer had said before the Forum, “We refuse to accept that the Kotharis’ mediclaim policy got cancelled because of our mistake. The error was technical. Crediting of the cheque presented by Kothari and its dishonour was by default and not deliberate. It’s his negligence in issuing cheque in favour of an insurance company without verifying the balance in his account. He is not a consumer and hence his complaint should be dismissed.”

The Forum observed, “It is important to note that the cheque, which was issued by Kothari was not for commerical transaction, but for securing his life. Hence the objection raised by BoM cannot be accepted. The case shows the bank’s inefficiency. Kothari is a consumer and is entitled for compensation.”

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/pune/1862812/report-bank-of-maharashtra-asked-to-pay-for-mediclaim-loss

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even