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

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