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

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...

Winding-Up Petition Can’t Be Used If Bona Fide Payment Disputes Pending

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of M/s Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd vs  M/s Shree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd, has held that a winding-up petition has serious  ramifications on the financial standing of a company and cannot be used in cases  where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed by one party to the  other and in such cases the company court should relegate the matter either to the  civil court or arbitral tribunal. In this case, Uttam Industrial Ltd entered into a contract with Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd  to provide machinery and equipment for a sugar plant. Article referred:  http://www.livelaw.in/remedy-winding-petition-cant-relied-upon-bona-fide-payment-disputes-karnataka-hc/

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...