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

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...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...