Latest news with #DakshinaKannadaDistrictConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
The Hindu
20-07-2025
- Health
- The Hindu
Insurance company directed to settle claim of pregnant woman
Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an insurance company to pay with interest the claim amount of a pregnant woman, overturning the company's decision to repudiate the claim on the grounds that the admission of the woman to the hospital was not required. The commission directed the company to pay the woman ₹45,704, with 6% interest from the date of repudiation of the claim, October 11, 2023, until the date of realisation. It also directed the firm to pay her ₹10,000 as compensation for the deficiency of service and mental agony. Furthermore, ₹5,000 should be paid to her as the cost of litigation, it stated. In the judgement on July 18, the commission said that the New Delhi-based Care Health Insurance Limited has not produced any documentary evidence to support its contention that fever, bodyache and throat pain in the claimant, for which she was hospitalised, was on account of pregnancy, and that hospitalisation was not required for these complaints. The company has clearly violated the terms of the health insurance policy by rejecting the claim without any valid grounds, the commission noted. Ruvin Shain D'Souza, a resident of an apartment in Chilimbi, was offered a Care Health Insurance policy by virtue of being a holder of a savings bank account with the Union Bank of India. Since May 2021, she has paid the premium regularly to renew the policy every year. She paid a premium of ₹10,107 for the policy valid between May 24, 2023 and May 23, 2024. She was pregnant and had fever, body pain and throatache. On the advice of her doctor, Ms. D'Souza was admitted to Father Muller Hospital on October 9, 2023. She was discharged on October 14, 2023. The hospitalisation and medical expenses charges totalled ₹45,704. The company rejected her request for a cashless treatment facility, as indicated in letters dated October 11, 2023, and October 13, 2023. The company gave reasons for rejection as 'admission not justified' and 'permanent exclusion admission primarily for investigation and evaluation'. Terming rejection as a deficiency in service, Ms. D'Souza filed a complaint demanding the settlement of the claim and necessary compensation. In the judgment, the commission, comprising president Somashekarappa Handigol and member H.G. Sharadamma, observed that the contention of the company was neither supported by medical records pertaining to the claimant nor had it examined the treating doctor to prove its contention.
Time of India
18-07-2025
- Automotive
- Time of India
Consumer forum orders compensation to high-end car owner
Mangaluru: The Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the supplier and manufacturer of a high-end car to pay compensation of Rs 5 lakh to a complainant. Complainant Bajpe Zakaria, a resident of Bolar in the city, appealed in his complaint before the commission, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs 25 lakh towards the higher price for the car. He also requested the extension of the agreed terms of 50% off/discount on service charges of the 2019 model vehicle for five years or until the vehicle is run up to 65,000 km. The complainant also sought the cost of the complaint from the opposite parties. Zakaria stated that he purchased the vehicle by paying Rs 1.3 crore and claimed that the price of the car was inflated and the sales managers and representatives agreed to extend 50% off on service for five years or up to 65,000 km. However, he received an email in April, 2020, stating the discontinuation of the 50% service package in Dec 2018. The complainant kept his car for service during June 2020, and a bill of Rs 33,563 was raised towards the service charges, though the car ran about 11,639 km and was well within the five years from the date of purchase, according to the complainant. After the hearing, DK District Consumer Commission president Somashekarappa K Handigol and woman member Sharadamma HG, in an order on July 11, directed the opposite parties to extend the agreed terms of 50% off/discount on service charges of the vehicle for five years or until the vehicle is run up to 65,000 km from the date of pronouncement of the order. The opposite parties were further directed to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh as compensation for unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, mental agony, and inconvenience caused to the complainant. The commission also directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 as the cost of litigation to the complainant.
The Hindu
27-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Delay in settling accident claim, insurance firm directed to pay over ₹2 lakh
The Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an insurance company to pay over ₹2 lakh with interest after finding it guilty of delay in settling claim for repair of the vehicle involved in an accident. The Future General Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay Ramesh alias Ramesh Kulal, a resident of Mani in Bantwal taluk of Dakshina Kannada district, ₹2.28 lakh with interest of 6% from March 17, 2025, the date of complaint, till realisation of the amount. It also directed the firm to also pay ₹25,000 as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony, and inconvenience caused to Mr. Kulal. It was also asked to pay ₹5,000 towards cost of litigation. Mr. Kulal owned a light commercial vehicle, which he used as goods carrier. This vehicle was insured for ₹2.28 lakh and it was valid from February 24, 2024 to February 23, 2025. On May 11, 2024, while the vehicle was returning to Mangaluru from Sullia amidst heavy rain, the driver lost control over vehicle near Anegundi. It hit the lorry coming from the opposite side and overturned. Authorised repairer of the vehicle in Mangaluru estimated the loss at ₹4.10 lakh, which was more than the sum insured. In the complaint to the commission, Mr. Kulal said the insurance firm deliberately delayed in settling the claim, which was submitted along with necessary documents. The commission issued notice to the firm, which failed to appear. Hence it was placed exparte. Quoting the 2018 ruling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the District Commission said: 'In the absence of version and affidavit from their (insurance firm) side, complaint allegation of the complainant (Mr. Kulal) is to be held as a proved fact'. The commission comprising of president (in charge) Somashekarappa K. Handigol and member H.G. Sharadamma on June 10 held there was deficiency in service by the insurance firm. The commission directed the firm to make the amount within 45 days from the date of pronouncement of order. Failing which amounts will carry 8% per annum interest from the date of default. Mr. Kulal may initiate civil/criminal proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, if the firm fails to comply with District Commission's order.
