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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

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