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

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

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

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more