Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd has been ordered by a consumer forum here to pay over Rs 4.11 lakh to a policy holder for first denying him the cashless hospitalisation facility and then avoiding to reimburse his expenses on treatment.

ORDER

Case # CC/840/10

Shri Anil Kumar Gupta

V.

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Dated: 03/09/2012 – New Delhi District Consumer Forum

The complainant had purchased a cashless mediclaim policy covering period from 16.6.2009 to 15.6.2010 from OP through his TPA. TPA was already exparte. The complainant had suddenly some chest pain on 10.10.2009 so he immediately contacted Heart Institute and he was advised to for hospitalization. He had a cashless mediclaim card and hospital authority immediately TPA for approval through mails/Fax on 13.10.2009 at 3:12 p.m. Simultaneously Dr. Praveen Kumar had also issued a medical history and disclosed in his letter that the complainant has no history of similar kind of episodes on 14.10.2009 at 3:58 p.m. but inspite of the above facts OP declined his cashless facility and the complainant had to bear himself to borrow money from various sources to save his life. The total amount complainant spent on hospitalization and operation was Rs.4,40,387/- and supportive documents are already on record. Further the complainant filed the claim and it was also repudiated on the ground of pre-existing without any evidence rather breach of contract law as doctor had already explained in his medical history that there is no past such history of diseases.
We have gone through the contents of OP para-4 in which OP has taken a plea that Escorts Hospital has been manipulated the history which clearly indicates the malafide intention and harassing attitude of OP to torcher the consumers arbitrarily without applying of mind and consciousness of justice. It has also been noticed that OP has deliberately avoided to make the payment to complainant from day one when he had contacted TPA for cashless facility which is totally unlawful Act for the consumer.
OP is directed to make the payment Rs.3,61,945/- as per bills including with 9% interest from the date of claim to till realization. We also award Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as harassment and litigation cost.
 

In a welcome decision, Consumer forum directs SGGSWU (Sri Guru Granth Sahib World University) to refund fees to a Patiala Student after deduction of Rs 1,000 only from Rs 36,000 paid for admission in July 2011, in terms of Punjab Govt’s notification referring to Directions of Ministry of Human Resource Development Department, which states –

“All institutions and universities shall maintain a waiting list of candidates. In case a candidate withdraws before the course begins, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat.”

Though, the university took the plea that the seat remained vacant, as the request for refund was submitted after the last date for admission. But Forum after referring to the above notification and also to the fact that the complete fees was never paid by the complainant, which was Rs 42,500, i.e. no seat was ever alloted to the complainant. Hence he was entitled to the refund in terms of the said notification.
Read More @ http://www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Patiala/Consumer-forum-directs-SGGSWU-to-refund-fee/SP-Article1-926218.aspx

Nokia has been directed by a District Consumer Forum to compensate Rs 67,000 to a customers for harrassing him by selling a defective” cell phone and then failing to repair it or refund its price. The South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held Nokia guilty of indulging in unfair trade practices for selling a defective phone and failing to repair it or refund its price since September 2007 when it was first taken for repairs by Delhi resident and complainant Rohan Arora.
“When the complainant (Rohan Arora) left the defective piece of good to its manufacturer, it was incumbent upon it either to remove its defect to satisfaction of the complainant or to refund its (mobile’s) amount with interest. But opposite party 1 did not bother to resolve such genuine request of the complainant.
“Hence we hold both the opposite parties (Nokia and the retailer) guilty for gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and direct them to jointly and severally refund the amount of the handset amounting to Rs 37,000 and to further pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 for supplying a defective good and thereafter not replacing the same or to remove its defect to his satisfaction.
“They shall also pay a sum of Rs 5,000 qua the cost of the proceedings,” the bench presided by M C Mehra said. Arora in his complaint had alleged that the phone, a Nokia E 90 Communicator bought in July 2007 for Rs 37,000, had poor incoming and outgoing audio right from the beginning.
more: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/defective-mobile-nokia-to-pay-rs-67k/995351/

In another decision by the New Delhi Consumer Court, Maruti has been slapped with a fine of Rs one lakh. for false claims as to fuel efficiency of Zen Card Model through advertisements in 2004.
The consumer alleged that Maruti in its advertisement in a newspaper had claimed a fuel efficiency of 16.7 km per litre for its Zen cars, relying on which the purchase decision was made by the complainant in 2005. But the car gave a mileage of 10.2 km per litre only which did not improve over the years even.
Hon’ble president C.K. Chaturvedi and bench said MUL had “adopted the mileage (in the advertisement) to its advantage without a corresponding clear information to consumers that this is not vouchsafed by Maruti itself.
Such advertisements enhance sales enormously by inducing consumer without corresponding benefits. In our view opposite party MUL explained Auto Car Sales data to exploit consumers and is guilty of unfair trade practice.
“We award a compensation of Rs 1,00,000 to complainant (Sharma) for this unfair trade practice and direct Maruti Suzuki to do its own authentic fuel efficiency test and state margin of error, in future advertisements, where it claims fuel efficiency per kilometer of a particular model of car,” the bench also comprising member S R Chaudhary said.
source: http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/mul-to-pay-rs-1-l-for-wrong-fuel-efficiency-advertisement/47196/