Skip to main content

Insurance firm to pay over Rs 4.5 L for deficiency in service

A consumer forum here has asked an insurance company to pay over Rs 4.5 lakh to a man, whose medicalim it had rejected, for indulging in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

The North-East Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by N K Goel, directed Oriental Insurance Company Ltd to pay Rs 4,53,678 to Delhi resident Vinay Jain towards his medical expenditure, compensation and litigation expenses.

"...We hold that while rejecting the claim in question of the complainant, OP (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd) indulged in unfair trade practice and committed gross deficiency in service," the forum, also comprising members Asha Kumar and Nishat Ahmad Alvi, said.

The forum noted that the insurance company had cited its alleged circular, which was "non-existent" at the time, to justify rejection of the claim.

The company claimed that as per the circular, continuity benefit could be given only if the policy was continuously insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

"The claim of complainant had been rejected on July 16, 2012, and rejection was confirmed by the competent authority of the OP (insurance company) on October 30, 2012. On October 30, 2012, the alleged circular dated November 6, 2012 was not in existence. It had not taken birth by that date.

"Therefore, how did and how could OP (insurance company) take shelter of any such non-existent circular is beyond our comprehension and imagination," the forum said.

It added, "Before taking such frivolous, imaginary and ridiculous plea before any forum, the officers of the insurance company must think over the matter hundreds of times and must always avoid to take such irresponsible and childish pleas."

Jain, in his complaint, had told the forum that he had obtained the mediclaim policy from the insurance company on May 26, 2011.

Prior to that, he had already taken the mediclaim policy from National Insurance Company Ltd for last about 10 years and thereafter, he got it transferred to Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on May 26, 2011 and the firm had agreed to give him continuity benefits.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-firm-to-pay-over-rs-4-5-l-for-deficiency-in-service-114080100883_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

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.

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.

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...