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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more