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

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