SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
New India Assurance Company Ltd. through Manager, Regional —Petitioner
versus
Smt Manish Abhay Bedmutha & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3741 of 2008
(From the order dated 07.07.2008 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Appeal no. 1478 of 2007)
Decided on 10.10.2013

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr Kishore Rawat, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1:Mr Sunil C Surana, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2:Ms Jyoti U Panwalkar, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Group Insurance Policy cannot be unilaterally cancelled.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Group Insurance Policy—Unilateral cancellation—Insurance company having offered attractive group insurance policies to various institutions for benefit of their employees later unilaterally withdraw the same where claim ratio on referred policy becomes high—This tantamounts to unfair trade practice—Beneficiaries are tempted by offer of attractive terms and money and amounts are collected over the years and thereafter benefits are denied when they submitted their claims—Insurance company unilaterally decide that group insurance policies so offered earlier be cancelled because they are no more financially viable and beneficial to them—A protocol or procedure for cancellation and informing beneficiaries is also not laid down—Denying benefit of insurance even though they have been paying premium for insurance policy over the years—Secretary, Ministry of Financial Service and Chairman IRDA may like to review such cases of cancellation of group insurance policies by public sector and private companies and take necessary action to ensure that insurance companies cannot in future unilaterally cancel group insurance policy after having offered the same—Even if it is to be cancelled it should be terminated not with retrospective effect as beneficiaries already covered should remain covered for duration of policy. (Para 20)

ORDER

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision petition no. 3741 of 2008 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 07.07.2008 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal no. 1478 of 2007.

2. The facts of the case as per respondent no. 1/ complainant are as follows:

The respondent no. 1 submits that as a wife/ widow of the deceased Dr Abhay Bansilal Bedmutha, the respondent no. 1 is the legal heir of the deceased Dr Abhay Bansilal Bedmutha who was the consumer of the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 is therefore, entitled to file the instant complaint against the petitioner.

The respondent no. 1 submits that deceased Dr Abhay Bansilal Bedmutha had a bank account with respondent no. 2 - Bank and was a shareholder/ member of the respondent no. 2 – Bank. The deceased was a consumer of both the Insurance Company as well as the Bank.

The respondent no.1 submits that respondent no. 2 - Bank canvassed a Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for all of its shareholders/ members, floated by the insurance company. Accordingly, the deceased Dr Abhay Bansilal Bedmutha purchased the said accident insurance policy for Rs.5,00,000/- under the Group Janata Accident Insurance policy bearing no. 47/98/300232 from the Insurance Company through the Bank and paid premium amount of Rs.340/- to the insurance company by the deceased Dr Abhay Bansilal Bedmutha towards the insurance coverage through the Bank. The said accident insurance policy was valid for 12 years from the date of purchase thereof i.e., till 17.11.2010 and the same was/ is still valid on the date of accident vis-à-vis the death of the deceased. Rs.5,00,000/- is the amount assured against any type of disability and in case of death. All the necessary records and particulars regarding the said accident insurance policy coverage concerning to the deceased are in possession of the insurance company.

On 14.10.2008 at about 07.00 p m while going to Vashi on his Hero Honda bearing registration no. MH 03 U 824, at Sion-Panvel Road, near New Toll Naka, in the jurisdiction of Vashi Police Station, the deceased Abhay Bansilal Bedmutha was unfortunately hit by an S T Bus of MSRTC from behind and sustained grievous bodily injuries.

Immediately the deceased was taken to the M G M N Hospital, Vashi. However, on admission the deceased was declared dead.

The respondent no. 1 being a widow and legal heir of the deceased Dr Abhay Bansilal Bedmutha, submitted duly filled in claim application to the Bank on 13.11.2006 with the request to process her claim of assured insurance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter, the Bank, after filling the required information in the said application, sent the said application to the insurance company along with all the necessary documents viz., claim application, a copy of the FIR and Panchnama, Death Certificate and Memorandum of Post Mortem Report dated 14.10.2006, issued by NMMC General Hospital, Post Mortem Centre, Vashi and other related papers for processing the claim of the respondent no. 1 as per the insurance policy. The said claim application along with the other referred documents have been duly submitted in the office of insurance company by the Bank.

Thereafter the insurance company vide letter dated 06.12.2006 informed the Bank with a copy marked to respondent no. 1 rejecting the claim on the ground that petitioner had cancelled the insurance policy of the deceased allegedly with effect from 04.06.2002 and also as the claim allegedly lodged is after the purported date of cancellation of the policy. However, no such information of alleged cancellation of the insurance policy was ever given to the deceased or to any of its relatives/ legal heir, as falsely claimed by the Insurance Company.

The respondent no. 1 further submitted that the alleged act of the insurance company was unilateral and arbitrary cancellation of policy of the deceased was




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top