Skip to main content

Insurance firm to pay 3 lakh for harassment, unfair trade practice

A consumer forum here has asked an insurance firm to pay Rs 3 lakh to a couple for causing harassment and delay in addressing their plea for cancellation of policies sold to them fraudulently by the company's agent.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd guilty of indulging in "unethical behaviour" and "unfair trade practice" which caused "mental agony" and "financial difficulties" to the couple due to deficiency in service in not taking corrective measures immediately.

The couple, whose personal details and signatures were incorrectly or fraudulently filled by the agent of the insurance company, had sought immediate cancellation of the seven policies worth Rs 12.5 lakh in 2010.
The forum presided by C K Chaturvedi also noted that while the company "arbitrarily" cancelled four policies, it had initially refused to cancel the remaining three policies without giving any justification.
The forum said that by delaying the refund of premium amount with interest, the company resorted to unfair trade practice.

It further noted that complainant Sanjay Kumar had to go through severe harassment to the extent of flying back to India from Zambia, where he was working, for presentation of his passport before the company cancelled them after a year.

The forum termed the company's practice as unethical behaviour.

"Opposite party (insurance company) instead of immediately refunding the premium with interest, resorted to unfair trade practice of delaying/ denying the refund. Company's behaviour being evasive is liable for said unethical behaviour by which the complainant suffered mental agony and the financial difficulties....," the forum also comprising its members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia said.

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-insurance-firm-to-pay-3-lakh-for-harassment-unfair-trade-practice-1998188

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more