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

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.
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

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.
Post a Comment
Read more