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

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/

'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...

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...