Skip to main content

Dept circular cannot modify policy conditions: Consumer forum

A departmental circular cannot modify contract conditions of an insurance policy, a consumer forum here has said while directing LIC to pay over Rs 6.96 lakh for deducting surrender value from a pension plan holder's investment prior to refunding her money.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held the state-run insurance company deficient in service for deducting an amount of Rs 6.46 lakh when the 71-year-old woman had surrendered her pension policies, saying the policy conditions clearly said no surrender value will be deducted.

"We have gone through the policy document in which it is categorically mentioned - 'The policy shall not acquire any surrender value' - whereas opposite party refunded the amount to complainant after deducting surrender value which is a clear case of deficiency on its part.

"No departmental circular can modify the contract conditions of policy," the bench presided by C K Chaturvedi said, adding that "deduction of surrender value which is not there (in policy condition) is unfair trade practice and against public policy and thus void."

The bench directed LIC to refund amount of Rs 6,46,055 to Delhi resident Meera Mahbubani, along with Rs 50,000 as cost of litigation.

The order came on the complaint of Mahbubani, who had said that she had invested Rs 52.5 lakh in 17 LIC pension plan policies, but since she was not satisfied with the returns she had decided to surrender the policies to re-invest the amount in other schemes of the company.

Even though the policy conditions said no surrender value will be deducted and LIC had assured her that no amount will be cut if she re-invests 50 per cent of the money, yet Rs 6.46 lakh was deducted despite her re-investing Rs 32 lakh in various LIC schemes, she had alleged.

LIC in its defence had contended that the amount was deducted as per a 2007 departmental circular which authorised such a deduction.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/dept-circular-cannot-modify-policy-conditions-consumer-forum-113061700308_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...

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 subs...