Skip to main content

Consumer Forum Directed Birla Sun Life To Refund Premium Over False Assurance

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company has been directed by UT District consumer disputes redressal forum to refund to a complainant the surrendered value along with the cost of litigation, on the ground of false assurance to provide an insurance cover that he required.
The complainant, Yashu Vashishath, a resident of sector 19 and a student at Punjab University subscribed to the policy which assured catering to all the requirements needed for him to get admission in Winconsin, U. S. A.
After paying the first premium of Rs 1 lakh, he left for the US. Yashu alleged that the premium receipt that the company issued to the school authorities abroad was rejected as the policy was not recognized there.
Yashu then took up the issue with insurance company, asking for the refund of the premium, but to no avail. A complaint was filed with the insurance ombudsman and despite the instructions; the company did not send the duplicate copy of the policy bond and or refund the amount.
Meanwhile, the insurance company pleaded that the complaint was barred by limitation as the same was filed after five years of inception of the policy. It was stated that the policyholder signed the declaration after agreeing to the contents. The company also alleged that complainant had failed to pay the remaining installments.
The council for the appellants submitted that the consumer complaint was filed after a lapse of five years of purchase of the policy and as such, it was palpably barred by time. Insurance ombudsman also held that the complainant was only entitled to the surrender value as five years had already lapsed.

Article referred: http://www.policymantra.com/blog/

Comments

Post a Comment

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/
Post a Comment
Read more

'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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more