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

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...
7 comments
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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more