Skip to main content

Bank of Maharashtra asked to pay for mediclaim loss

Consumer forum decides bank's inefficiency cost man his policy

Chief of Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, VP Utpat, and Forum member SM Kumbhar have directed Bank of Maharashtra (BoM) to pay Rs16,000 to Shukrawar Peth resident who did not get mediclaim benefits owing to neglect of the Bank.

The forum asked the Bank to pay within within six weeks, Rs10,000 as compensation for the mediclaim benefits he lost, Rs5,000 for the mental agony he suffered, and Rs1,000 as suit charges, totalling Rs16,000.

Vinod Takhatmal Kothari, a resident of Shukrawar peth had moved a plaint against BoM regional office at Lokmangal in Shivajinagar on September 13, 2010, for alleged inefficiency of services.
According to Kothari’s complaint, he ran a proprietary concern named Sha Takhatmal Foujimalji Kothari and had a current account with BoM for six years. He had availed a mediclaim insurance policy from the Oriental Insurance Company 13 years ago. It was a joint policy with his wife Pista being the other member.

“I renewed the joint policy on November 5, 2009. On November 4, 2009, I had issued a cheque for Rs8,446 by way of premium of policy. On previous day that is on November 3, 2009, I had deposited a cheque for Rs 14,024, which was drawn on Union Bank of India in my current account. I was under the impression that the cheque must have been credited in my current account.

“Due to the mistake of BoM, the cheque was credited in another account and the cheque which was issued in favour of Oriental Insurance Company was dishonoured on November 7, 2009. Because of this, the insurance company cancelled the mediclaim policy I had bought. This is the bank’s inefficiency.

“Since I am a heart patient, I had been renewing the mediclaim policy for the past 13 years regularly. Under this policy, I was entitled for reimbursements of all the expenses, hospitalisation and surgical expenses. But because the policy got cancelled, I lost the security of life even after years of regular renewals. I did not get the benefit for heart disease due to a clause about pre-existing disease,” Kothari said.

In its defence, the BoM lawyer had said before the Forum, “We refuse to accept that the Kotharis’ mediclaim policy got cancelled because of our mistake. The error was technical. Crediting of the cheque presented by Kothari and its dishonour was by default and not deliberate. It’s his negligence in issuing cheque in favour of an insurance company without verifying the balance in his account. He is not a consumer and hence his complaint should be dismissed.”

The Forum observed, “It is important to note that the cheque, which was issued by Kothari was not for commerical transaction, but for securing his life. Hence the objection raised by BoM cannot be accepted. The case shows the bank’s inefficiency. Kothari is a consumer and is entitled for compensation.”

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/pune/1862812/report-bank-of-maharashtra-asked-to-pay-for-mediclaim-loss

Comments

Most viewed this month

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.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

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...