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

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