Skip to main content

Insurance firm pulled up by consumer forum for arbitrary decision

The South Mumbai district consumer dispute redressal forum on Monday pulled up the New India Assurance company guilty of arbitrarily deducting a claim made by one of its Versova-based consumers who had undergone a cataract operation in October 2009.

What did the fine amount to?
The forum directed the firm to pay back the total expense occurred to the consumer, which is Rs72,606, along with 6% interest on the amount from November 2009 onwards. The forum also directed the firm to pay an additional Rs15,000 and Rs5000 towards the complainant's mental agony and litigation cost, respectively.

What had happened to the consumer?
As per the forum's order copy, Prem Padma had, in 1991, purchased a mediclaim policy which had a claim cover of Rs3 lakh, and which was active till the year 2010.
In 2009, Padma started realizing a problem in her left eye, and thus sought medical opinion from an ophthalmologist, who asked her to undergo a cataract operation, which was done in October 2009.

What was the discrepancy?
After getting operated, Padma immediately sought for her medical claim of Rs72,606 from the firm on an immediate basis. However, in December 2009, the firm issued her a cheque of Rs46,106 and refused to issue the remaining amount of Rs26,500.
Despite Padma asking for the remaining amount to be cleared, it was not done. Thus, she refused to accept the previously disbursed amount and returned the cheque to the firm. Aggrieved by the firm's attitude, Padma filed a complaint at the firm in December 2012.

What was the firm's defense?
After going through the complaint, the forum asked the firm to file a reply. The firm then claimed that as per their rule book, the maximum amount which one needs for cataract surgery is Rs 40,000. However, in Padma's case, they had issued an amount of Rs 46,106. Thus claiming that they did not fail in providing service to their consumer.

Arbitrary attitude
The forum went through the arguments made by the complainant and the firm, and held that the rule upon which the firm had relied to deduct the amount, was not produced before the forum. "This clearly shows that the firm has acted arbitrarily while deducting the claim lodged by the complainant," the forum's order copy read.

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-government-insurance-firm-pulled-up-by-consumer-forum-2034012

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

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
Post a Comment
Read more