Skip to main content

Insurance firm pulled up for inventing grounds to reject claim

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd has been pulled up by a consumer forum here for "inventing grounds" to reject the claims of a woman whose deceased husband had been insured with it.

The New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, also asked the insurance company to settle the claims of two policies and also pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the man's wife.

The forum, also comprising its members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia, said the company was "just inventing grounds to defeat the just claim" and asked it to settle the death claim filed by Punjab resident Rashpal Kaur for her late husband.

"We...Find that opposite party (insurance company) is just inventing grounds to defeat the just claim. His (man) going to the school upto primary or leaving it, or his being a farmer etc. Are no grounds to deny the death claim," the forum said.

"We hold the insurance company guilty of arbitrarily repudiating the claim and guilty of deficiency in services," it said.

It said that it was for the insurance company to verify all facts before giving insurance cover and having accepted his certificate, it cannot be allowed to repudiate the claim.

"None of the grounds amounts to suppression of material facts nor has the opposite party been able to discharge burden of proving suppression of facts by leading cogent evidence," the forum said.

According to the woman, the company was not releasing the claims of the two policies of her husband who was insured with it, of Rs 5 lakh and Rs 1.5 lakh respectively.

The company had rejected the claim on the ground that the man's school certificates showing his date of birth was found fake by an investigation conducted by the insurer.

In its reply before the forum, the company had also stated that the man was a semi-literate farmer, alcoholic and unemployed. However, no investigation report was placed on record.

Arbitration referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-firm-pulled-up-for-inventing-grounds-to-reject-claim-114060600975_1.html

Comments

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.

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...

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.