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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more