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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...