Skip to main content

Insurance firm pulled up for inventing grounds to reject claim

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd has been pulled up by a consumer forum here for "inventing grounds" to reject the claims of a woman whose deceased husband had been insured with it.

The New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, also asked the insurance company to settle the claims of two policies and also pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the man's wife.

The forum, also comprising its members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia, said the company was "just inventing grounds to defeat the just claim" and asked it to settle the death claim filed by Punjab resident Rashpal Kaur for her late husband.

"We...Find that opposite party (insurance company) is just inventing grounds to defeat the just claim. His (man) going to the school upto primary or leaving it, or his being a farmer etc. Are no grounds to deny the death claim," the forum said.

"We hold the insurance company guilty of arbitrarily repudiating the claim and guilty of deficiency in services," it said.

It said that it was for the insurance company to verify all facts before giving insurance cover and having accepted his certificate, it cannot be allowed to repudiate the claim.

"None of the grounds amounts to suppression of material facts nor has the opposite party been able to discharge burden of proving suppression of facts by leading cogent evidence," the forum said.

According to the woman, the company was not releasing the claims of the two policies of her husband who was insured with it, of Rs 5 lakh and Rs 1.5 lakh respectively.

The company had rejected the claim on the ground that the man's school certificates showing his date of birth was found fake by an investigation conducted by the insurer.

In its reply before the forum, the company had also stated that the man was a semi-literate farmer, alcoholic and unemployed. However, no investigation report was placed on record.

Arbitration referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-firm-pulled-up-for-inventing-grounds-to-reject-claim-114060600975_1.html

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

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