Skip to main content

Insurance company to pay widow Rs 5 lakh for falsely denying claim

An insurance company was held guilty of deficiency of service for falsely denying the claim of a widow on the grounds that her husband had defaulted on the policy premium. LIC of India has been directed to pay Komal Kewalramani Rs 5.05 lakh with 8% interest and an additional Rs 10,000 as costs.

The insurance company had filed an appeal in the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2009, after a district forum passed an order against it.

Komal's husband, Ashok, had procured the policy in March 2004, and paid a quarterly premium of Rs 9,500. Ashok died on December 10, 2004, following which his wife filed the claim. But in February 2006, the claim was rejected on the grounds that Ashok had not paid the premium due in September 2004. Komal contended that when Ashok had gone to pay the premium, the company officers had told him that as per the status report, the premium was already credited. Aggrieved with the rejection, Komal filed a complaint in the Thane district forum in 2007. The forum ruled in her favour.

In its appeal in the state commission, the insurance company iterated its stand. It said that though the record showed that the premium was paid, it was a mistake made by the agent. The insurance company also alleged that Ashok was dishonest considering the fact that if he was aware that he had not actually paid the premium and he could have approached the branch manager and deposited the amount.

The commission, however, observed that Komal's version was more credible than that of the insurance company.

"The district forum after going through the facts of the case has passed an order and we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order," the commission said, while dismissing the insurance company's appeal.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-10-22/mumbai/43286677_1_district-forum-premium-widow-rs

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Disease Caused By Insect Bite In The Natural Course Of Events Not Covered Under 'Accident' Insurance

In Civil Appeal No 2614 of 2019, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Mousumi Bhattacharjee, the interesting issue was claim accidental death from mosquito bite. The insured while working in Mozambique died of malaria and the insurer rejected the claim on the ground that the policy was for protection against personal accident and death from mosquito bite was not accidental death. However, the District, State and even the National Consumer Forum went against the insurer who finally appealed before the Supreme Court. The problem was what constitutes an accident. The NCDRC also noted that website of the Insurance Company, an accident may include events like snake bite, frost bite and dog bite. The Supreme Court looked into precedents set by both Indian as well as International courts while responding to similar issues and observed that in order to constitute an accident, the event must be in the nature of an occurrence which is unnatural, unforeseen or unexpected. The present ...
Post a Comment
Read more