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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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