Skip to main content

Insurance company made to pay dues by consumer court for ignoring court order

An insurance company's delay in meeting the just dues of a medical insurance policy holder resulted in it being forced to pay him nearly double the sum. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - II, even issued a warrant of arrest against a divisional manager of the United India Insurance Company Ltd after which the company paid the entire sum due along with costs and damages.

Had the company heeded the decision of the insurance ombudsman, it would have got away by paying the policy holder only Rs 18,855. By forcing him to approach the consumer court, the company ended up paying an additional Rs 18,250 in costs and punitive damages.

Sugata Shankar Roy, an advocate, who was the complainant in this case held a medical insurance policy of Rs 50,000. After hospitalization, the insurance company reimbursed only Rs 17,884. Not satisfied with this he approached the insurance ombudsman who ordered on November 16, 2012, that an additional Rs 18,855 was due to Roy. The company refused to comply with this order and the complainant moved the consumer court. On September 17, 2013, the bench of the consumer court headed by B Mukhopadhyay held that the company would have to pay Rs 18,855, a composite compensation of Rs 3,000 and litigation cost of Rs 2,000 to Roy.

The consumer court also made clear that in case the company doesn't pay at that time, it would have to pay additional punitive of Rs 250 per day. The insurance company didn't comply with the order or prefer an appeal. On November 18, the consumer court took up the matter again. The court directed the Kolkata Police commissioner to order the Hare Street police station to arrest the divisional manager of the insurance company's divisional office - IV by the next day of hearing (December 11, 2013) as its order hadn't been complied with.

On December 11, 2013, the insurance company handed over a cheque of Rs 23,855 (Rs 18,855+Rs 3,000+Rs 2,000) to Roy but didn't pay the punitive damages. The court refused to withdraw the warrant of arrest against the divisional manager. On December 24, 2013, the company moved an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission but it wasn't entertained. Finally, on Monday, the company handed over a cheque of Rs 13,250 (@ Rs 250 for 53 days from October 17, 2013) to the court and the matter was disposed of.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-17/kolkata/46300749_1_consumer-court-insurance-ombudsman-additional-rs

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more