Skip to main content

Insurance firm told to pay for transfer of dead body from USA

A district consumer forum recently directed the Oriental Insurance Company Limited to pay the over Rs 2 lakh spent by a Mulund resident, Arvind Thakkar, to bring back the dead body of his wife, Rashmi, from America. The forum observed that a clause in the insurance said the company would bear the transfer charges of the body, and hence the company could not reject the claim sighting the 'cause of death'.

The forum, headed by SS Vyavahare and member SR Sanap, directed the company to pay Thakkar the cost of transferring the body along with 10 per cent interest from the date of filing the complaint till disbursal of the amount. In addition, the insurance company also should pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 for the mental agony it caused to the complainant, as well as Rs 2,500 towards litigation cost.

As per the complaint filed by Thakkar through NGO Consumer Welfare Association, he had taken the insurance policy for a period starting from March 22, 2009 to September 17, 2009. As per the terms and conditions, the company would cover the transfer charges of the dead body to India if the insured died while abroad; if the last rites were performed abroad, the cost of that too would be covered.

On March 31, 2009, Rashmi died at her son's house when he and his wife were away at work. Her son informed the local office of the insurance company about the death after he returned home. The company did not respond. And the son spend money from his pocket to transfer the body to India.

The company rejected the claim on September 23, 2009 after Thakkar had applied for it. The reason sighted was that Rashmi had died of cardiac arrest, an ailment that was not covered under the policy. Thakkar then moved the forum seeking compensation of over Rs 2 lakh.

The company claimed the complaint was false as Thakkar had not informed before taking the policy that his wife had been suffering from heart ailment. Further, it was argued that the complaint had been filed after two years, in 2012, making it bound by the 'law of limitation'.

AM Macarena's, appearing for the NGO, argued that the claim raised was not connected to the ailment, and hence the company was bound to compensate Thakkar. The forum, which agreed with the argument put up, asked the insurance firm to pay Thakkar the claim amount.

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-insurance-firm-told-to-pay-for-transfer-of-dead-body-from-united-states-to-india-1986940

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