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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more