Continued……
Consumer Education and Research Center
Legal Action:-
It is only when all negotiations and mediation in a consumer dispute
fail, does CERS resort to litigation itself as the first litigant.
**************************************************************
The following are again some of the cases resolved in consumer courts
on
which press releases were issued during the period under review:
1.
CERS
makes New India Assurance settle Rs. 80 Lakh Claim
In this case, a tactical move by a government-ownerd general
insurer to
reject a valid claim of an amount as high as Rs. 80 lakh by making a convenient
interpretation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was blocked
by CERS’s intervention. Doshion Ltd. received a contract for installation of a
desalination plant in 2005. The company got a standard fire and special perils
policy from New India Assurance Company Ltd before starting the work in 2006.
The policy covered risk of Rs. 29.25 crore, including cover of Rs. 5 crore for
construction material and other stocks, and premium paid was Rs. 8.08. Lakh.
While work was in progress, the
construction site was flooded with sea water due to a breach in a nearby embankment
and the machinery and material were destroyed. The development was immediately
reported to the Insurance Company. Damages were estimated to be around Rs. 80
lakh and Doshion put up a claim of Rs. 86.93 lakh before the insurer. However
the claim was rejected saying that the site, where the damage occurred, was
different from the place mentioned in the insurance policy.
Doshion approached CERS which filed a complaint before the Gujrat State
Commission. The Commission ruled in favor of the complainant and ordered the
insurance company to pay Rs. 80 lakh within 30 days with interest at 9%. Rs. 1
lakh as compensation for mental agony and Rs, 50,000/- towards, Litigation
Cost.
***********************************************************
2. Agarwal Packers shells out compensation for damaged goods.
Rajesh Krishna Das availed the services of Agarwal Packers and Movers
when shifted residence from Noida to Ahemadabad in 2010 paying Rs. 30,610. The
goods were damaged during transit. Rajesh had been assured that the goods would
be transferred using one truck all the way but he found out that they had been
shifted to another truck midway which may have caused the damaged. Rajesh
lodged a complaint with the movers seeking compensation. As his request was not
heeded he approached CERS which filed a complaint with the consumer forum.
The opposite party argued that the goods damaged were not declared in
the list at the time of booking and also that the amount claimed was not valid
as it did not include the depreciation. However, CERS was able to justify its
claim and the verdict came in favor of the complainant. It asked company to pay
Rs. 31000/- with interest @9% along with Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental
harassment and Rs. 2000 towards litigation charges.
***********************************************************
3. School coughs up refund after CERS intervenes:
Dharmesh Shah had paid admission fees for both his sons, Fenil and
Devras, amounting to Rs. 50,000 to the authorities of Somlalit School. But,
before the academic session for 2010-11 began, Dharmesh Decided to withdraw his
sons from the school and asked for fee refund. He followed up his request with
legal notice but to no avail. Finally Dharmesh approached CERS which filed a
case before consumer forum.
The School authorities argued that the fees were non-refundable and this
had been specified at the time of admission. CERS highlighted that this was not
mentioned on the fee receipts and hence the refund claim was valid. The school
also claimed that since it was an educational institute it was not bound by the
regular consumer and service provider relationship.
However, the Forum observed, citing the ruling of the National
Commission and Supreme Court, that as the school charged fees it was bound to
provide service. Further, CERS argued that the school had not been adversely
affected as the vacant seats had been filled subsequently. The forum ruled in
favour of the complainant asking the school to refund the fees with interest at
9%, Rs. 3000 for mental agony caused and Rs. 1000 towards litigation costs.
***********************************************************
4. Whirlpool India told to compensate harassed consumer
Kalpesh Parikh purchased an RO water purifier from Whirlpool India only
to find out that it was defective within a few days of purchase. His repeated
attempts to ask Whirlpool to repair it were in vain. Hence, Kalpesh approached
CERS which lodged a complaint in the consumer forum. As per the settlement,
Whirlpool India agreed to pay a token amount of Rs. 2000 along with replacement
of damaged parts of the machine.
A technician from Whirlpool would visit the complainants house and do
the necessary repairs. Even if there were major repairs involved, it would be
Whirlpool’s responsibility to get the machine repaired and return it to the
complainant within three weeks. Whirlpool also gave Kalpesh an extended
warranty cover for the RO water purifier that would be considered valid from
the day it was returned to the complainant in workable condition.
***********************************************************
5. New India Assurance compelled to pay deducted sum
This case highlights how insurance companies deny rightful claims by
giving unsubstantial reasons. Asha Rungta was insured under good health policy
for the period effective from 1 March 2006. The sum assured was Rs. 4 lakh.
Asha was hospitalized for the treatment of lung disease for over a month in
2007. Medical Expenses came to Rs. 3,75,395/- and accordingly claim was
submitted. The insurance company sanctioned only Rs. 2 lakh on the grounds that
Ashs had been suffering from this disease since 2003 and at that time the sum
assured was Rs. 2 lakh only. Hence, she was not entitled to the remaining claim
amount.
After repeated pleas to settle the claim went unheard, CERS filed a
complaint on her behalf before the consumer forum, Ahmedabad. As the insurance
company did not produce any documents to support their deduction, the Forum
passed the Verdict in her favour. Aggrieved, the insurance company approached
the State Commission. The Commission observed that the insurance company had
not produced any proof of pre-existing disease, such as doctor’s affidavit, and
upheld the order passed by the Forum. It ordered the insurer to pay the
complainant Rs. 1,75,395 and Rs. 1250 towards litigation costs.
***********************************************************
To Be Continued……..
No comments:
Post a Comment