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

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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/
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more