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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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