Skip to main content

LIC asked to pay Rs 70,000 compensation for deficient services

The Thane District Consumer Redressal Forum has ordered LIC to pay a compensation of Rs 70,000 to a Bhiwandi resident towards legal charges and mental suffering that he had to undergo after his insurance claim was rejected following the death of his son.

Forum President Umesh Jhavalikar and Member N D Kadam in their order last week also directed three respondents, including LIC of India, Assistant Secretary (G/ULIP) and Manager (Claims) to make a payment of Rs 50,000, the insurance amount claimed by complainant Narendrakumar Mishra.

Mishra, in his complaint, stated that he had taken the 'Children's Deferred Endowment Assurance Policy With Profits' for his son Shyamnandan (who was 13 then) effective from January 1, 1998 for a period of 17 years. Also, he paid Rs 1,142 half-yearly and the total sum assured was Rs 50,000. The last date for payment of the premium was July 1, 2014.

The policy holder was to get the maturity amount on January 01, 2015. There was a condition in the policy that it would be transfered on the name of the beneficiary (son) when he attains the age of 21 i.E on 14.04.2006.

However, his son died due to illness on June 3, 2006, but he had paid his premium regularly to LIC upto July 2005, Mishra told the Forum.

He further stated that LIC deliberately defied the conditions in the policy and rejected his claim and was thus deficient in its services towards him.

After hearing both the counsels, the Forum observed that even though the policy has not been transferred in the name of the child there is a clause that the insured amount can be paid to the heir of the insured.

The insurance company could have very well regularised and extended the policy and given benefit of the policy to the complainant by levying a penalty for non-payment of further premiums which it did not not do.

The insurance company had simply taken shelter under the technical aspects and rejected the claim which itself is deficiency in services for which it needs to pay compensation to the complainant.

For mental sufferings and losses it should pay the complainant Rs 20,000 and towards legal expenses pay Rs 50,000 all within 30 days, the Forum ruled.

Besides, the Forum also ordered the LIC to make payment of Rs, 50,000 which is the sum assured by the complainant on the name of his son.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/lic-asked-to-pay-rs-70-000-compensation-for-deficient-services-114070800345_1.html

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

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

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