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

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...

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/

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...