Skip to main content

Duress and coercion by Insurance companies condemed

The Delhi High Court has directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Irdai) to convene an urgent meeting of insurance companies in Delhi to address the problem of 'duress and coercion' used by them to force a contracting party to abandon legitimate rights under law. The order was passed in the judgment, Worldfa Exports Ltd vs United India Insurance.

The conduct of the companies, violating the provisions of the Contract Act and consumer laws, was severely condemned by the court. The firm in this case had taken a fire insurance policy and there was a fire in its premises. It claimed Rs 12 crore, but the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs six crore. The insurer tendered Rs 5.62 crore and asked the firm to send an undated discharge voucher in 'full and final settlement' of the claim. The company which was in distress due to the long delay in settling the claim signed the voucher.

The high court pointed out that no law permitted an insurance company to withhold the payment of the admitted amount unless a 'full and final settlement' voucher is given to the insurer. The Supreme Court had termed the practice "unfair, irregular and illegal." The National Consumer Commission has also condemned the coercive practice, the high court said. At the high court's instance, Irdai had earlier issued a circular asking the insurers to abandon the 'bad faith' practice. Since more cases of coercion are coming up everywhere, the court asked IRDA to call the meeting and report to it later this week.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/duress-to-sign-away-dues-condemned-115122000687_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more