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

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...

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...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...