Skip to main content

Insurance firm told to pay for transfer of dead body from USA

A district consumer forum recently directed the Oriental Insurance Company Limited to pay the over Rs 2 lakh spent by a Mulund resident, Arvind Thakkar, to bring back the dead body of his wife, Rashmi, from America. The forum observed that a clause in the insurance said the company would bear the transfer charges of the body, and hence the company could not reject the claim sighting the 'cause of death'.

The forum, headed by SS Vyavahare and member SR Sanap, directed the company to pay Thakkar the cost of transferring the body along with 10 per cent interest from the date of filing the complaint till disbursal of the amount. In addition, the insurance company also should pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 for the mental agony it caused to the complainant, as well as Rs 2,500 towards litigation cost.

As per the complaint filed by Thakkar through NGO Consumer Welfare Association, he had taken the insurance policy for a period starting from March 22, 2009 to September 17, 2009. As per the terms and conditions, the company would cover the transfer charges of the dead body to India if the insured died while abroad; if the last rites were performed abroad, the cost of that too would be covered.

On March 31, 2009, Rashmi died at her son's house when he and his wife were away at work. Her son informed the local office of the insurance company about the death after he returned home. The company did not respond. And the son spend money from his pocket to transfer the body to India.

The company rejected the claim on September 23, 2009 after Thakkar had applied for it. The reason sighted was that Rashmi had died of cardiac arrest, an ailment that was not covered under the policy. Thakkar then moved the forum seeking compensation of over Rs 2 lakh.

The company claimed the complaint was false as Thakkar had not informed before taking the policy that his wife had been suffering from heart ailment. Further, it was argued that the complaint had been filed after two years, in 2012, making it bound by the 'law of limitation'.

AM Macarena's, appearing for the NGO, argued that the claim raised was not connected to the ailment, and hence the company was bound to compensate Thakkar. The forum, which agreed with the argument put up, asked the insurance firm to pay Thakkar the claim amount.

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-insurance-firm-told-to-pay-for-transfer-of-dead-body-from-united-states-to-india-1986940

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more