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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more