Skip to main content

Interpretation of 'Threshold Limit' - Insurance - Consumer Forum

The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has held the United India Insurance Company Limited guilty of deficiency in service for rejecting a claim by "misreading and misconstruing" the terms of policy. It has directed the firm to pay to the complainant Rs 1,40,345 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation (February 8, 2012) and also pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for harassment.

The complaint was filed by Kamlendra Kanwar of Sector 30, Chandigarh, and his wife against the insurance company from which they had been taking health insurance policies for the last several years. The latest policy was for the period August 26, 2011, to August 25, 2012. In addition to that he had taken "Top up" medicare policy for the same period. After Kanwar's wife, Sushma, fell ill, a claim of Rs 1,40,345 was lodged under the Top-up policy.

The counsel for the insured contended that the claim was wrongly repudiated on vague and irrelevant terms vide letter dated February 8, 2012, giving reasons "the claimed amount is Rs 1,40,345 but the threshold limit is Rs 2 lakh, therefore it cannot be paid."

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Insurance-company-to-pay-up-Rs-1-6-lakh/articleshow/46802099.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings had been conducted behind their back. Th
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

"as is where is" defined

This is a fairly contentious issue as often sale conducted on "as is where is basis" goes into litigation due to lack of understanding or otherwise on both sides. Below are two judgments with different conclusions but helps reveal the problem 1) Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia vs. District Magistrate Dehradun & Ors. - Uttarakhand HC Bank takes possession of borrower's property and issues auction notice for sale of properties so possessed. The successful bidder pay part of the money and request the Bank to demarcate the property so that sale deed may executed and physical possession handed over. The Bank did make several representation to the concerned authorities to demarcate the property. That did not happenand the Bank instead of pursuing the demarcation proceedings with the Revenue Authorities called upon the successful bidder to make balance payment failing which deposit amount was informed to be liable for forfeiture. The bidder due to failure of revenue authoriti
Post a Comment
Read more