Skip to main content

Bank's responsibility to inform next of kin

Many persons are unaware of life insurance which comes free with their credit/debit cards but the banks that issue them have a responsibility to fulfil their duty towards its customers. If they fail to get the promised amount from the insurance company, the banks will be guilty of deficiency in service.

The National Consumer Commission held so in its judgment last week, HDFC Bank vs Pooja Kapoor. The bank had issued a gold card to Pankaj Kapoor and wife Pooja with the benefit of insurance for Rs 5 lakh in case of accidental death. The bank's arrangement was with New India Assurance. Pankaj died in an accident, but the widow did not claim the insurance benefit for a long time, though the condition in the policy prescribed a 30-day limit.

She was not aware of the benefit when the bank account was closed due to the death. The bank did not tell her either. Later, she learned about the insurance and she approached the bank. It referred the claim to the insurer, which rejected it on the ground of delay. She moved the Sonepat consumer forum.

It ordered the bank to pay full amount plus litigation expenses for causing harassment and mental agony. The state commission dismissed the bank's appeal stating that when the bank came to know of the death, it was bound to refer the claim to the insurer. The second appeal of the bank to the national commission was also dismissed, though the amount was reduced.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/complaints-regarding-bounced-cheques-115121300680_1.html

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