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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more