Skip to main content

Insurance firm pulled up by consumer forum for arbitrary decision

The South Mumbai district consumer dispute redressal forum on Monday pulled up the New India Assurance company guilty of arbitrarily deducting a claim made by one of its Versova-based consumers who had undergone a cataract operation in October 2009.

What did the fine amount to?
The forum directed the firm to pay back the total expense occurred to the consumer, which is Rs72,606, along with 6% interest on the amount from November 2009 onwards. The forum also directed the firm to pay an additional Rs15,000 and Rs5000 towards the complainant's mental agony and litigation cost, respectively.

What had happened to the consumer?
As per the forum's order copy, Prem Padma had, in 1991, purchased a mediclaim policy which had a claim cover of Rs3 lakh, and which was active till the year 2010.
In 2009, Padma started realizing a problem in her left eye, and thus sought medical opinion from an ophthalmologist, who asked her to undergo a cataract operation, which was done in October 2009.

What was the discrepancy?
After getting operated, Padma immediately sought for her medical claim of Rs72,606 from the firm on an immediate basis. However, in December 2009, the firm issued her a cheque of Rs46,106 and refused to issue the remaining amount of Rs26,500.
Despite Padma asking for the remaining amount to be cleared, it was not done. Thus, she refused to accept the previously disbursed amount and returned the cheque to the firm. Aggrieved by the firm's attitude, Padma filed a complaint at the firm in December 2012.

What was the firm's defense?
After going through the complaint, the forum asked the firm to file a reply. The firm then claimed that as per their rule book, the maximum amount which one needs for cataract surgery is Rs 40,000. However, in Padma's case, they had issued an amount of Rs 46,106. Thus claiming that they did not fail in providing service to their consumer.

Arbitrary attitude
The forum went through the arguments made by the complainant and the firm, and held that the rule upon which the firm had relied to deduct the amount, was not produced before the forum. "This clearly shows that the firm has acted arbitrarily while deducting the claim lodged by the complainant," the forum's order copy read.

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-government-insurance-firm-pulled-up-by-consumer-forum-2034012

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more