Skip to main content

HDFC fined for harassing consumer

Central Mumbai's district consumer dispute redressal forum on Wednesday pulled up HDFC Standard Life Insurance for failing to hand over the invested amount of a Mumbai-based consumer, even after the amount had reached its maturity in July 2013. The forum thus directed the insurance firm to hand over the entire amount of Rs1,35,188 along with 9% interest rate on the amount from June 2013. The forum also directed the insurance firm to pay an amount of Rs10,000 towards the harassment caused to the complainant, along with an additional amount of Rs3,000 towards the complainant's litigation cost.

The complainant, Kalpana Sathe on July 1, 2003, had purchased a policy from the firm by paying a premium amount of Rs9,617. According to Sathe, the policy was Rs1 lakh and its maturity amount was Rs1,35,188. After the policy was matured in July 2013, she approached the firm, however instead of handing over the maturity amount, the firm insisted that she invest the amount in the firm's other scheme.

Sathe kept on requesting the firm to pay her back the matured amount, but the firm failed to abide vby its word. In 2014, she approached the forum and filed a complaint against the firm. The forum then asked the firm to file its reply, but the latter failed to do so.

Since the firm did not respond to the allegations leveled by the complainant, the forum on Wednesday passed its orders. In its orders, the forum stated, "If an investor doesn't wish to invest its amount in any scheme, then the company cannot force them to do so. The firm has unnecessarily harassed its consumer, who is a senior citizen, and therefore, the complainant is entitled to a compensation for harassment."

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-hdfc-fined-for-harassing-consumer-2016016

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more