Skip to main content

Insurance company made to pay dues by consumer court for ignoring court order

An insurance company's delay in meeting the just dues of a medical insurance policy holder resulted in it being forced to pay him nearly double the sum. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - II, even issued a warrant of arrest against a divisional manager of the United India Insurance Company Ltd after which the company paid the entire sum due along with costs and damages.

Had the company heeded the decision of the insurance ombudsman, it would have got away by paying the policy holder only Rs 18,855. By forcing him to approach the consumer court, the company ended up paying an additional Rs 18,250 in costs and punitive damages.

Sugata Shankar Roy, an advocate, who was the complainant in this case held a medical insurance policy of Rs 50,000. After hospitalization, the insurance company reimbursed only Rs 17,884. Not satisfied with this he approached the insurance ombudsman who ordered on November 16, 2012, that an additional Rs 18,855 was due to Roy. The company refused to comply with this order and the complainant moved the consumer court. On September 17, 2013, the bench of the consumer court headed by B Mukhopadhyay held that the company would have to pay Rs 18,855, a composite compensation of Rs 3,000 and litigation cost of Rs 2,000 to Roy.

The consumer court also made clear that in case the company doesn't pay at that time, it would have to pay additional punitive of Rs 250 per day. The insurance company didn't comply with the order or prefer an appeal. On November 18, the consumer court took up the matter again. The court directed the Kolkata Police commissioner to order the Hare Street police station to arrest the divisional manager of the insurance company's divisional office - IV by the next day of hearing (December 11, 2013) as its order hadn't been complied with.

On December 11, 2013, the insurance company handed over a cheque of Rs 23,855 (Rs 18,855+Rs 3,000+Rs 2,000) to Roy but didn't pay the punitive damages. The court refused to withdraw the warrant of arrest against the divisional manager. On December 24, 2013, the company moved an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission but it wasn't entertained. Finally, on Monday, the company handed over a cheque of Rs 13,250 (@ Rs 250 for 53 days from October 17, 2013) to the court and the matter was disposed of.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-17/kolkata/46300749_1_consumer-court-insurance-ombudsman-additional-rs

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

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

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more