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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more