Skip to main content

Insurer rejects man's claim after dad's death, fined

An insurance company will have to pay nearly Rs 3 lakh as compensation to a Vidyavihar resident after it wrongly rejected his father's life insurance claim on the grounds that the latter had concealed a pre-existing disease while taking the policy in 2007.

Observing that the onus was on the insurance company to prove that there was material concealment of a disease which directly proved to be fatal, the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also told Aviva Life Insurance to pay the heir of the deceased the insured amount of Rs 10.67 lakh. The forum held that the deceased, Balakrishan Makwana, was over 45 years old when he had obtained the policy and a mandatory medical check-up should have been conducted.

Balakrishan had subscribed to a policy plan called "Save Guard", under which he was to pay an annual premium of Rs 3 lakh and was promised an assured amount of Rs 15 lakh.

After paying two premiums, Balakrishna requested the company in January 2009 to convert the annual premium into a monthly premium as he was unable to pay Rs 3 lakh. The company accepted the request.

On April 28, 2009, Balakrishna complained of uneasiness while climbing the stairs and fell down. He was rushed to hospital, where he was declared dead. He had suffered a heart attack.

In May 2009, Balakrishna's son Hemal informed the insurance company officer about his father's death. On May 11, 2009, he received a sympathy letter and a death claim form from the company. Hemal submitted the required documents and filed the claim.

A few days later, he received a repudiation letter from the company stating that Balakrishanhad answered no to a specific question on diabetes and hypertension in the proposal form. Hemal filed a complaint in the consumer forum on August 30, 2010. The forum passed an ex parte order. Hemal told the forum that the company, in 2010, offered him part payment of Rs 4 lakh, which he accepted under protest.

Article referred:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-24/mumbai/40165265_1_4-lakh-3-lakh-hemal

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more