LIC Jeevan Saral: Supreme Court Asks Petitioners To Seek Recourse under Article 226
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition by Moneylife Foundation against Jeevan Saral policy sold by Life Insurance Corp of India (LIC) on the ground of maintainability. 
 
A Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta, said, "We are not inclined to entertain the present petition as a PIL, in which event the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 at the instance of the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 will be in serious doubts as they have an alternative remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution or to initiate proceedings before the appropriate forum. The writ petition is dismissed, leaving the petitioners with the option to avail other remedies in law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."
 
Petitioner no. 3 and 4 in this case are individual policyholders, who have suffered a loss in the Jeevan Saral policies.
 
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing Moneylife Foundation told the bench that lakhs of LIC Jeevan Saral policyholders are not in a position to raise the issue individually and had thus joined hands with the NGO to pursue their legal battle.
 
The bench, however, did not express satisfaction on the locus standi of Moneylife Foundation.  
 
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had appeared for Central government in this case.
 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, gives powers to high courts to issue certain writs…
 
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
 
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32
 
The PIL, filed on behalf of thousands policyholders of Jeevan Saral, sought to have LIC and Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to "amend to Jeevan Saral Plan 165 policy maturity to repay all the premium paid along with bank saving rate at 8% per annum to all the existing Policy holders of the Jeevan Saral Policy."
 
The petition also sought recall of LIC Jeevan Saral by IRDAI.
 
As highlighted by Moneylife, LIC's Jeevan Saral, which used to be a hot-selling insurance product for agents, until it was withdrawn, is a controversial product. In fact, Jeevan Saral was a traditional product that could make your premium (money paid) disappear! This can happen in many policies during surrender or making it ‘paid-up’, but, in the case of Jeevan Saral, it has happened even at policy maturity. 
 
A senior citizen couple got just one-third of the premiums paid over the years. 
 
The Jeevan Saral product, which has gobbled up hard-earned savings of policyholders (especially senior citizens) has also agitated LIC agents and their association. Despite innumerable letters, protests and objections, LIC has not budged so far. 
 
Moneylife Foundation sent a memorandum to IRDAI on 18 August 2018, pointing out that Jeevan Saral (with profit), a traditional policy, has caused senior citizens to lose as much as 65% to 70% loss of the money invested over 10 years. 
 
From the Memorandum, IRDAI, had highlighted four points in its letter to LIC and termed them as being of a 'serious nature'. These are:
 
1. The proposal form did not have any provision to mention the (lower) maturity sum assured; instead it had a provision only for the higher death benefit.
 
2. The maturity benefit was not printed on even the policy documents.
 
3. The agents, as well as some LIC officers were not aware of the plan in general, and the fact that customers may get lesser money than the total premium paid.
 
4. The prospective customers were not informed at the time of sale that the higher insurance coverage provided by the product would lead to poor (negative for those in the higher age group) returns. 
 
Moneylife Foundation also sent copies of the Memorandum to the finance minister as well as the insurance regulator. The financial services department in the ministry, which looks after insurance matters, on 28 September 2018, forwarded the Memorandum to IRDAI asking its chairman to take appropriate action. 
 
It has also asked IRDAI to inform the ministry about action taken (on the Memorandum) with regard to the Jeevan Saral policy and inform both, Moneylife Foundation and the ministry. 
 
Moneylife Foundation has received a one-line reply to its memorandum from the LIC chairman VK Sharma, which says, "We appreciate the concerns raised by you in your letter dated 1 October 2018. It will be dutifully looked into."
 
However, there is no further response from either LIC or the insurance regulator, which had forced Moneylife Foundation to approach the highest court seeking justice for crores of policyholders.
 
NOTE for LIC Jeevan Saral Policyholders
 
Moneylife Foundation is reviewing the SC order and intends to pursue the interests of Jeevan Saral policyholders, who have been short-changed. If you are interested in joining the battle, then please send an email to [email protected] with a subject line "Attn- Aditya/Yogesh for LIC Jeevan Saral". Kindly provide following details in the email (Please do not share these as comment below

Name of Policyholder:
Address:
PAN No:
Income: Rs
Email ID:
Occupation:

Policy Details:
Name of Policyholder:
Policy No. & Date:
Premium Paid (with number of years)
Maturity value received/offered by LIC:     

Individual story (brief):
 
You may also want to read…
 
 
 
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    tapan sur

    3 weeks ago

    Every financial instrument other than the meager interest banks pay, are there only to cheat the buyers of those instrument in the longterm. So better would be to look for monthly returns & then save these returns for compounding benefits in the long term. Your money in others hand will surely be misused as it is not earned by them whether they are individuals or institutions. Though we have regulations which are much better than what we had 10 years back, they still need more corrections, or else keep losing your hard-earned money to financial sharks out there to pounce on you and dispossess you.

    Harish

    1 month ago

    Hope you find a legal way out to continue the fight against LIC's exploitations.

    jaisheelg g

    1 month ago

    I will recommend moneylife to everyone citizen of this country to fight against corruption in financial sector

    Arun Kumbhar

    1 month ago

    Moneylife as so called Financially enlightened group under the pretext of PIL has mislead the people about LIC a brand much taller than it.
    In the first place moneylife cant present insurance as saving and investment product and ask for 8% interest.
    If it is really bothered it should take true efforts to make people aware of insurance needs in a nation which people are uninsured and highly underinsured..
    The word premium disappeared is highly irrelevant. The money was allocated to insurance expenses.
    Moneylife must have the same concern about MF equity and MLM where poor citizens have lost trillions.

    REPLY

    Venugopal Reddy B

    In Reply to Arun Kumbhar 1 month ago

    Even though I sympathise with the people feeling the pinch, I kind of agree with Arun's comment here. I didn't expect this kind of commentary from Money line. If we extend this argument little further, some one in future might file a case on Term Life insurance products also saying they absolutely gobbled up entire premium paid and gave 0 on maturity. There could be some mis selling from Agents , but I don't see a problem with LIC. Product is more like a hybrid Term Insurance with more importance to Insurance.

    ROHIT SAXENA

    In Reply to Arun Kumbhar 1 month ago

    It's the duty of government to provide education.

    Satish Chand Bhadwal

    1 month ago

    I AM IN.

    LIC Jeevan Saral: Moneylife Foundation Files Petition in Supreme Court Seeking Refund of Premiums for Policyholders
    A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Moneylife Foundation was heard by the Supreme Court on Thursday. The bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta deferred the matter to 15 July 2019 as per request from senior counsel Arvind Datar, representing Moneylife Foundation.
     
    The PIL filed on behalf of thousands policyholders of Jeevan Saral, seeks to have Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) to "amend to Jeevan Saral Plan 165 policy maturity to repay all the premium paid along with bank saving rate at 8% per annum to all the existing Policy holders of the Jeevan Saral Policy."
     
    The petition also seeks recall of LIC Jeevan Saral by IRDAI. 
     
    As highlighted by Moneylife, LIC's Jeevan Saral, which used to be a hot-selling insurance product for agents, until it was withdrawn, is a controversial product. In fact, Jeevan Saral was a traditional product that could make your premium (money paid) disappear! This can happen in many policies during surrender or making it ‘paid-up’, but, in the case of Jeevan Saral, it has happened even at policy maturity. 
     
    A senior citizen couple got just one-third of the premiums paid over the years. 
     
    The Jeevan Saral product, which has gobbled up hard-earned savings of policyholders (especially senior citizens) have also agitated LIC agents and their association. Despite innumerable letters, protests and objections, LIC has not budged so far. 
     
    Moneylife Foundation sent a memorandum to IRDAI on 18 August 2018, pointing out that Jeevan Saral (with profit), a traditional policy, has caused senior citizens to lose as much as 65% to 70% loss of the money invested over 10 years. 
     
    From the Memorandum, IRDAI, highlighted four points in its letter to LIC and termed them as being of a 'serious nature'. These are:
     
    1. The proposal form did not have any provision to mention the (lower) maturity sum assured; instead it had a provision only for the higher death benefit.
     
    2. The maturity benefit was not printed on even the policy documents.
     
    3. The agents, as well as some LIC officers were not aware of the plan in general, and the fact that customers may get lesser money than the total premium paid.
     
    4. The prospective customers were not informed at the time of sale that the higher insurance coverage provided by the product would lead to poor (negative for those in the higher age group) returns. 
     
    Moneylife Foundation also sent copies of the Memorandum to the Finance Minister as well as the insurance regulator. The financial services department in the ministry, which looks after insurance matters, on 28 September 2018, forwarded the Memorandum to IRDAI asking its chairman to take appropriate action. 
     
    It has also asked IRDAI to inform the ministry about action taken (on the Memorandum) with regard to the Jeevan Saral policy and inform both, Moneylife Foundation and the ministry. 
     
    Moneylife Foundation has received a one-line reply to its memorandum from the LIC chairman VK Sharma, which says, "We appreciate the concerns raised by you in your letter dated 1 October 2018. It will be dutifully looked into."
     
    However, there is no further response from either LIC or the insurance regulator, which forced Moneylife Foundation to approach the highest court seeking justice for crores of policyholders.
     
    You may also want to read…
     
     
     
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    Manjiv Sharma

    2 months ago

    LET THE COURT TAKE THE CALL IN COMMON INTEREST OF ALL.

    BUT JEEVAN SARAL IS A GREAT PLAN.

    ITS A PURE TERM & ENDOWMENT COMBINATION.

    SO, UNLIKE TERM PLAN
    IT DOES RETURN OF AN AMOUNT.

    WHICH IN CASE OF TERM PLAN IS LOST ( LOSS A CONSEPTION, NOT A FACT).

    PL ASK WIDOWS WHO RECEIVED THE 250 TIMES CLAIM
    ( BIGGER THAN ANY TRADITIONAL ENDOWMENT, IN SAME PREMIUM ,TERM).

    I FEEL IN COURT LIC WILL WIN. ON PRODUCT GROUND.

    AS PRODUCT IS PASSES BY IRDA AFTER DUE SCRUTINITY.

    NO FLAW IN PRODUCT TERM & CONDITION.

    FOR EXAMPLE:

    TAKE SAME PREMIUM & TERM & COMPARE IT WITH OTHER ENDOWMENT PLANS OF ALL LIC & PRIVATE INSURANCE CO.

    PARAMETERS AS:

    1.PREMIUM :SAME
    2.TERM:SAME

    3. RISK COVER= SARAL IS. BETTER
    4. MATURITY= SARAL IS BETTER.

    AS LA DEPENDS UPON MORTALITY & INVESTMENT RETURNS.

    LONG TERM WAS BETTER.


    BUT

    AS ON DATE NOW:
    SARAL PLAN IS CLOSED FOR NEW SALE.

    THE EFFECT ON MORTALITY WILL BE ADVERSE.

    AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE AN OPEN ENDED PRODUCT.
    IN EASY TERM: WITH NEW LA ENTERENCE THE AGERAGE AGE REMAIN CONSTANT ( PROBABILITY) BUT NOW THE AVG AGE OF POLICY HOLDER WILL RISE. RESULTING INTO MORE CALIM.

    EVENTUALLY: ITS BETTER TEN A TERM PLAN WHERE .NO RETURNS ON MATURITY.


    ANYWAYS:
    ITS IN FAVOUR OF POLICY HOLDER.

    MU JUDJMENT:
    THOSE WHO GOT THE CLAIM,

    FLEXIBILITY IN WITHDRAWL

    INTEREST OF 7% ON LAPSES .

    POLICY(BROKEN PERIOD).

    250 TIMES THE RISK COVER.

    PARTIAL WITHDRAWL

    SAME PREMIUM FOR ALL AGE.


    TERM + ENDOWMENT COMBINATION

    ITS WAS A GREAT MIX OF NEED & WANTS.
    COURT IS THE BEST PLACE, WE ALL WILL RESPECT & ABIDE BY ITS GOOD DECISION.

    NOTHING WRONG IN GOING TO COURT OF LAW. IF CASE OF ANY DOUBT.

    GOOD INITIATIVE
    NICE JOB.

    BEST WILL PREVAIL.














    REPLY

    Sanjay Buche

    In Reply to Manjiv Sharma 1 month ago

    Nicely explained.
    Most of the people are commented without the knowledge of this product,and the besic concept of life insurance as well.
    Half knowledge is dengerous.

    Amit Kumar

    In Reply to Sanjay Buche 1 month ago

    You are absolutely right, most people are commenting without the knowledge of the product. But tell me who is responsible to share the details of the product?? Is it the customer's who should know the details on their own or that agent should tell the details in detailed manner to a customer before selling any product. The agents have only misguided the customers on behalf of LIC and LIC should accept its fault.

    MDT

    In Reply to Sanjay Buche 1 month ago

    Thanks for your comment. Are you the same Sanjay Buche, who is shown as ABM at Life Insurance Corporation of India? (https://in.linkedin.com/in/sanjay-buche-52585791?trk=public_profile_samename_mini-profile_title) Have you ever thought about policyholders, especially from your own family or friend circle who would have lost money due to hyped selling by LIC?

    MDT

    In Reply to Manjiv Sharma 2 months ago

    Thanks for your comment. Are you the same Manjiv Sharma, who is shown on LinkedIn (https://in.linkedin.com/in/manjiv-sharma-71a80819) as development officer of LIC? In that case, we request you to think for a second about your agents and their clients, especially those above 50 years, who have lost money in this scheme. Also a normal comment is fine with us and our other readers, instead of using all capital letters.

    Amit Kumar

    In Reply to Manjiv Sharma 2 months ago

    Dear Sir,

    What you said is totally true. But one thing is also true that the mentioned plan was not sold as term plan. Nobody knew its more of a term plan and less of a traditional plan. And while selling also returns were discussed instead of cover as regarding to term plans.

    Regards

    Sanjay Buche

    2 months ago

    Jeevan saral is a very nicely designed insurance plan.
    Thanks to LIC for this inovative product.
    Main concern is not understanding of this product.
    Basically Insurance policies are for Insurance cover.and not for higher returns.
    In term insurance policies nothing will be payable at maturity,This does not mean that Term insurance is bad for return.
    Can anybody file a case for no returns in term policies.
    Risk premium increases with age and death sum assured.
    Higher the age higher will be the risk premium.
    If any body opts for insurance at higher age ,naturally the premium amount towards risk will be higher.
    Jeevan saral plan of LIC is very nicely designed innovative product and was awarded at various platform.
    It is absolutely wrong to say about this plan.
    Please understand the product first and then comment.
    This plan gives good return as compared to other product, for lower age at entry . Returns will be less for Higher age at entry.
    It is quite obvious that higher the age higher will be the probability of risk of being died.
    In Many policies of Jeevan saral LIC settled the death claim.

    REPLY

    Prashant Doshi

    In Reply to Sanjay Buche 2 months ago

    Very shameful blind sale by a trustworthy corporation in India due to the poor knowledge of the team heads for the agents..

    Prashant Doshi

    In Reply to Sanjay Buche 2 months ago

    This product was sold in the market without mentioning it's side effects ...Because of the poor study by the sellers and their Superior officers only interested in new business more and more

    Rishabh Adukia

    2 months ago

    Extremely sad state of affairs by LiC and ministry , nobody is taking accountability
    A policy holder must be given an option to surrender and take money back along with Interest
    Request others to join in this mission

    Lalit Khurana

    2 months ago

    I was holding this Jeevan saral policy from last 6 years and have just surrendered this a month back only and have not even got what all I have paid in the last 6 years....Can I also file any complaint regarding this ? Please confirm

    REPLY

    Sucheta Dalal

    In Reply to Lalit Khurana 2 months ago

    You can join out complaint by filing an affidavit - write to [email protected] and we will send you a draft that you have to fill and send back. It is in your interest to do so, especially since there will be no cost to you.

    Prashant Doshi

    In Reply to Sucheta Dalal 2 months ago

    The proposal review slip-on the policy docket don't contain the amt of Maturity SA within mentioned even in the written decision by officers and the definition of The word Maturity SA is mentioned nowhere

    Prashant Doshi

    In Reply to Prashant Doshi 2 months ago

    No morality charges are ever mentioned using any table in the policy document

    Amit Kumar

    2 months ago

    I also own a policy of Jeevan saral and continuing since 2013. While selling the LIC agent showed a chart containing returns starting from 10 years to 35years and said the returns are good. Which worked as a catalyst for me to invest in such a policy. Now I'm reading all these about the policy. Kindly guide me what to be done as of now.

    REPLY

    Aditya Joby

    In Reply to Amit Kumar 1 month ago

    Hi!

    Thanks for your comment. I am a part of Moneylife, and hope I can resolve your issue regarding the Jeevan Saral Policy you have. Here is the link to a maturity calculator, created by an independent agency (so all your doubts are alleviated).

    https://www.investobite.com/maturity-calculator/lic-jeevan-saral-plan-165.html

    If you still believe that you have been cheated, please send us a mail at [email protected], with the subject:"Attn: Yogesh/Aditya Jeevan Saral".

    Prashant Doshi

    In Reply to Amit Kumar 2 months ago

    Age below 45 yrs at the inception of the policy need not worry about returns

    Anil Kumar

    2 months ago

    What is the number of policy affected / premium amounts gobbled up by LIC in this. An article headlining this will probably wake more people up / get regulatory and finance ministry cranking.

    REPLY

    Sucheta Dalal

    In Reply to Anil Kumar 2 months ago

    We are in the Supreme Court because no amount of writing, cover stories, RTI and memorandums worked. It is a long process. You may want to read these two articles of 2017 and 2018 to know the hard work that has gone behind the litigation.
    2017: https://www.moneylife.in/article/life-insurance-lic-jeevan-saral-a-toxic-product/50333.html
    2018: https://www.moneylife.in/article/will-lic-be-made-to-pay-for-the-horrible-mis-selling-of-jeevan-saral/53802.html

    google within our site and you will find more!

    Panch Deo Pandey

    2 months ago

    I support money life foundation, thank you for supporting us. I believe, we will get a justice.

    Panch Deo Pandey

    2 months ago

    As a L I C agent I have sold this policy to many people almost my relatives and I also buy this policy. This is very hazardous for us.

    REPLY

    Prashant Doshi

    In Reply to Panch Deo Pandey 2 months ago

    Wait and watch...the mass fraud shall be opened at SC

    Sucheta Dalal

    In Reply to Panch Deo Pandey 2 months ago

    Mr Pandey, do write to [email protected] so that those who have this policy can join the petition free of charge. WE are sending affidavits for them to send to their clients. This needs to be done before 10 July since case comes up on 15th July. You can also call 49205000 and speak to Mr Yogesh Sapkale today. We are sending out draft affidavits today

    Bhushan Dhingra

    2 months ago

    Please update me as well as I have also invested in this policy and I am hardly getting anything back. Kindly update how and where to register a complaint against this.

    REPLY

    Aditya Joby

    In Reply to Bhushan Dhingra 1 month ago

    Hi!

    Thanks for your comment. I am a part of Moneylife, and hope I can resolve your issue regarding the Jeevan Saral Policy you have. Here is the link to a maturity calculator, created by an independent agency (so all your doubts are alleviated).

    https://www.investobite.com/maturity-calculator/lic-jeevan-saral-plan-165.html

    If you still believe that you have been cheated, please send us a mail at [email protected], with the subject:"Attn: Yogesh/Aditya Jeevan Saral".

    SANDESH PAWAR

    2 months ago

    Although I don't own the policy, I would like to give big "Thank you" on behalf of the policy holders. I am proud to be associated with an organisation like yours.

    Vikas Gupta

    2 months ago

    Gr8...

    Harish

    2 months ago

    Great Work MoneyLife!

    Pradip Chinnakonda

    2 months ago

    Please update.

    Consumer Forum Asks Oriental Insurance to pay Rs7.38 lakh for Joyride Injury
    A personal accident policy and a happy family floater policy are usually sufficient for most individuals and families to head out for a holiday. Or that’s what a honeymooner thought. 
     
    The following is a case of a person holding all relevant policies but different interpretation of certain clauses by the insurer could have denied him reimbursement. Maintaining all relevant receipts, bills and records probably too came in handy for the insured. 
     
    For Hiren B Joshi, a resident of Mira Road, the holiday was also his honeymoon within a fortnight of his marriage on 28 November 2014. He selected Manali in Himachal Pradesh after consulting Heena Tours & Travels. Lakhs of people visit Manali each year for adventure sports including paragliding from India and abroad, newspaper reports say. {https://www.thrillophilia.com/cities/manali/tags/paragliding}
     
    The Joshis were part of a group of 100, in which they would go up in the air through a non-motorized, foot launched flying glider with an inflatable wing, which would gradually descend with the help of a parachute. In the case of Mr Joshi, the parachute did not open fully, despite attempts by the pilot. On descent he hit the rocky portion of the surrounding hills and was grievously injured, says a South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum order dated 1 June 2019. 
     
    The paragliding, on 10 December 2014, was being operated by an expert and Mr Joshi had no role in operating it and was no more than what a passenger would be in an airplane.
     
    For his injuries, Mr Joshi was admitted the same day to Lady Wellingdon Hospital at Kullu. He was moved to Fortis Hospital at Mohali the next day and was discharged on 6 January 2015. Soon after reaching Mumbai, he was hospitalized again at the Borivali Orthopaedic Clinic from 6 February 2015 to 9 February 2015 and again from 1 April 2015 to 4 April 2015. 
     
    “The complainant lodged the claim claiming compensation of Rs6 lakh under the happy floater policy and in support of it he had submitted a duly completed claim form and the original medical and investigation reports, case papers, bills, memos, which was received by the opposite party on 12 January 2015,” said the order by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 
     
    Happy family floater policy from Oriental Insurance gives a fairly comprehensive cover to a family against illness and injury. For details on Happy Family Floater Policy, please read under -- {https://orientalinsurance.org.in/documents/10182/45621/HFF_Policy_wording/6ad2772c-5efc-4cc9-a46a-b2def73f9493
     
    Mr Joshi also filed a claim under the personal accident policy issued to him by the insurance company. 
     
    Mr Joshi sought Rs6 lakh plus Rs1.28 lakh for the settlement of his claims under the happy family floater policy and personal accident policy and compensation. He also asked the insurance company to pay him Rs60,000 towards payment of fees to a senior advocate.
     
    He submitted every single piece of document that could be relevant for the case including brochures given by the travel operator, medical and hospitalisation bills, communications with Raksha TPA, among others.
     
    The insurance company rejected his claims on 25 March 2015 and the order was confirmed by the ombudsman on 26 October 2015. One of the key grounds for rejection of his claims by the insurer was Clause 4.19 of the policy.
     
    Clause 4.19 of Oriental Insurance Co states “Any treatment arising from Insured’s participation in any hazardous activity including but not limited to scuba diving, motor racing, parachuting, hang gliding, rock or mountain climbing etc. unless specifically agreed by the Insurance Company.”
     
    However, Joshi contended that he himself did not indulge in any risky activities, he was not operating any equipment and was just like a passenger being navigated by a trained pilot. 
     
    At the Consumer Forum, the insurance company “appeared and filed a written statement through their authorised signatories and the divisional manager Jaysurya Rapaka ,stating that, the complaint is false and bad in law, reliefs prayed for are not maintainable and there is no cause for action and the complaint is time barred, hence dismissed with cost.”
     
    “…taking part in paragliding is itself risk, knowing the same complainant has taken the risk and hence the injury cause due to taking such risk is not covered,” the insurer contended.  
     
    The insurer could not provide any material evidence to back up the contention that paragliding is a hazardous activity, and that injuries were sustained because of Joshi’s own negligence, Joshi contended. 
     
    Mr Joshi’s request to Raksha TPA for cashless facility on 12 December 2014 too had come a cropper, with Raksha replying that as per clause 4.19 the injury has been sustained during a hazardous sport. Raksha assured Joshi that he could seek a review later.
     
    The bench finally decided that Joshi is entitled to Rs6 lakh under happy family floater policy, Rs1.28 lakh under personal accident policy, along with 3% interest from the date of filing the complaint. Mr Joshi also got Rs7,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs3,000 for the proceedings. 
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    P M Ravindran

    2 months ago

    The relevant question is whether the insurance co has paid the compensation or gone on appeal.

    shivkumar

    2 months ago

    Insurance companies are very fast while issuing a policy, on the other hand they look for all sorts of excuses to reject the claims. I will not be surprised that the insurance company in the said case goes in appeal before the State Commission. By the way what is 3% interest? Is it a joke?

    We are listening!

    Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
      Loading...
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email

    BUY NOW

    online financial advisory
    Pathbreakers
    Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
    online financia advisory
    The Scam
    24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
    Moneylife Online Magazine
    Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
    financial magazines online
    Stockletters in 3 Flavours
    Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
    financial magazines in india
    MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
    (Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)