http://insurancemutualfundhomeloan.com/
Saturday, May 19, 2018
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Friday, August 14, 2015
Monday, September 3, 2012
Kotak Mahindra Insurance ordered to pay Rs 36K to elderly man
Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd has been
ordered to pay Rs 36,800 to a man for not returning the premium amount
paid for a policy which he had returned within the 15-day free-look
period.
The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum pulled up the insurance firm for "cheating" customer Satish Chandra Tyagi and not returning him the premium amount despite Tyagi having returned the policy as per the stipulation that the same could be returned within free-look period of 15 days, if not liked by customer.
"Opposite party (Kotak Mahindra) has furnished long winding arguments to explain its position. We find its position totally untenable in the face of prima facie case of the complainant and evidence on record.
"Firstly, the policy was void ab-initio being issued in wrong name. Secondly, it was returned within free-look period.
"The money should have been refunded, but opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice, cheating and deficiency of service (by not returning the money). We direct it to refund Rs 11,800 and pay Rs 25,000 as damages for harassment and litigation cost," said the bench, presided by C K Chaturvedi.
In his complaint, 60-year-old Tyagi had submitted that he and his wife were approached and offered by the insurance firm a suitable policy for them, subsequent to which his wife had purchased the policy in her name on November 20, 2005 after paying Rs 11,808 as first premium.
The policy was not issued in his wife’s name but issued in his name and it was also not a life insurance policy as was agreed upon at the time of payment of premium, he had said.
Tyagi also submitted that he was later issued a new policy, which he returned within 15 days and then had demanded refund of premium of Rs 11,808 but the firm had not returned the amount.
Source: PTI AUGUST 30 2012
The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum pulled up the insurance firm for "cheating" customer Satish Chandra Tyagi and not returning him the premium amount despite Tyagi having returned the policy as per the stipulation that the same could be returned within free-look period of 15 days, if not liked by customer.
"Opposite party (Kotak Mahindra) has furnished long winding arguments to explain its position. We find its position totally untenable in the face of prima facie case of the complainant and evidence on record.
"Firstly, the policy was void ab-initio being issued in wrong name. Secondly, it was returned within free-look period.
"The money should have been refunded, but opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice, cheating and deficiency of service (by not returning the money). We direct it to refund Rs 11,800 and pay Rs 25,000 as damages for harassment and litigation cost," said the bench, presided by C K Chaturvedi.
In his complaint, 60-year-old Tyagi had submitted that he and his wife were approached and offered by the insurance firm a suitable policy for them, subsequent to which his wife had purchased the policy in her name on November 20, 2005 after paying Rs 11,808 as first premium.
The policy was not issued in his wife’s name but issued in his name and it was also not a life insurance policy as was agreed upon at the time of payment of premium, he had said.
Tyagi also submitted that he was later issued a new policy, which he returned within 15 days and then had demanded refund of premium of Rs 11,808 but the firm had not returned the amount.
Source: PTI AUGUST 30 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
LIC Chairman Views
After a difficult year in terms of premium collection, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) has set its sights on 20-25 per cent growth in 2012-13.
How do you see the life insurance sector faring this year?The industry witnessed a slowdown last (financial) year and LIC was no exception. This year, things should be better. We have set ourselves a target of 20-25 per cent growth in the new business premium collection. Last year, a majority of savings went into two assets, land and gold. Now, investors have realised there is not so much of fluctuation or volatility in the performance of insurance products. So, insurance is being preferred this year.
Last year, there was a clear shift in product preference for traditional plans. What is the product mix for LIC?
Our product profile has seen a shift in the past few years. As of March 31, the mix was 80 per cent conventional and 20 per cent Ulips (unit linked insurance plans), as compared to 80 per cent of new products being Ulips just four years before.
Is 80:20 the ideal mix of traditional and Ulips?
No, I think the ideal should be 65:35 for LIC. A Ulip has its own advantages, it gives you fast returns. So, if there is a space for Ulips, we will be present there. That is why even this year, of the three-four products we’re planning to launch, one or two will be Ulips.
With the new guidelines on traditional products on the anvil, all insurers might have to re-file most products for regulatory clearances. Would these impact sales?
As detailed in the draft, most of the companies would have to withdraw several products, including us. There will be an impact. We have tried to tell (the regulator) through the Life Insurance Council that this should be done in a phased manner. Also, it needs to be seen whether traditional products which have been time-tested in the market needs to be withdrawn. The new product guidelines have a lot of restrictions for insurers and intermediaries. It will impact sales.
What restrictions do you see in terms of guidelines?
I think the compensation package will get impacted. Then the returns of customer intermediaries. We need to study these carefully. In a competitive market like today, we have to have some flexibility. We cannot have a straitjacket product; some flexibility has to be built into it. The industry is not yet ready for this, is my view. Let the industry mature and settle down; it is still at a very nascent stage.
You had said earlier that pension (plans) are going to be the next big thing. Right now, there are no pension products. What needs to be done to revive the market?
I still believe the future of insurance is pensions and health. Today, except what LIC is offering, there is no other pension product in the market. We need to first understand pensions and annuity. Pension products should actually be utilised at the post-retirement stage. An annuity is a product that can start at any point of one’s life. Many people try to mix the two.
We need clear guidelines on both these products and they should be segregated. There should be some system to support the sale of pension products.
Have you taken up the issue of how to incentivise the product with the government?
This was only a suggestion, that we have separate tax relief for pension. This will provide incentives to people who would invest. Since a pension (policy) is a long-term contract, it gives insurers a long-term flow of income, which can be utilised for various activities, especially infrastructural ones.
What is the investment target this year? Will the slowdown in Ulip sale impact the investment this year?
It has a bearing but not a serious one on the investment pattern of LIC. Last year, we had put in Rs 40,000-45,000 crore in the equity market. We put 10-15 per cent of our investible fund into the capital market. If Ulips are better, it may go up. This year, we will be able to meet the same amount as last year. Taking into account the debt side last year, our total investment was about Rs 1.95 lakh crore. This year, we plan to invest Rs 2.1-2.2 lakh crore.
source :business standard
08 Aug 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Insurance company told to pay full amount to Widow
A consumer court imposed a fine of Rs8,000cr on a insurance compianay after it refused
to pay the fulI insurance amount to a widow and her minor son.The court also asked the firm to pay insurance money to two complainants.
The case is about Mukund Shah of Surat who had bought an insurance policy of 1 crore from Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd in 2002.
Later insurance was increased to Rs 1.15 crore. While taking this policy Shah informed the company that he had differentpolicies of Life Insurance Corporation to the extent of Rs 21 lakh. Shah passed away in 20O5.When his widow Nitaben and minor son Saumin sought the
amount of insurance, Kotak Mahindra paid them Rs 9 lakh instead of Rs 1.15 crore. The company said that it had held back Rs 23lakh because Shah had not,revealed tlnt he had LIC policies worth Rs 41 lakh. Since.he disclosed a cover of Rs 21 lakh only and suppressed information, the amount was deducted from the payment of insurance to his heir.
This stange stand by the insurance company led the claimants to file a complaint with the state consumer disputes redressal commission in 2007 against the company through
advocate Himanslu fitakker They claimed the remaining amount of Rs 23 lakh and compensation
because the insurance company's gesture amount to defieiency in service.
Thc consumer court heard the case and concluded that the deduction of any amount from insured money on the pretext of partial disclosure was against the policy.
Source: Times News Network
to pay the fulI insurance amount to a widow and her minor son.The court also asked the firm to pay insurance money to two complainants.
The case is about Mukund Shah of Surat who had bought an insurance policy of 1 crore from Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd in 2002.
Later insurance was increased to Rs 1.15 crore. While taking this policy Shah informed the company that he had differentpolicies of Life Insurance Corporation to the extent of Rs 21 lakh. Shah passed away in 20O5.When his widow Nitaben and minor son Saumin sought the
amount of insurance, Kotak Mahindra paid them Rs 9 lakh instead of Rs 1.15 crore. The company said that it had held back Rs 23lakh because Shah had not,revealed tlnt he had LIC policies worth Rs 41 lakh. Since.he disclosed a cover of Rs 21 lakh only and suppressed information, the amount was deducted from the payment of insurance to his heir.
This stange stand by the insurance company led the claimants to file a complaint with the state consumer disputes redressal commission in 2007 against the company through
advocate Himanslu fitakker They claimed the remaining amount of Rs 23 lakh and compensation
because the insurance company's gesture amount to defieiency in service.
Thc consumer court heard the case and concluded that the deduction of any amount from insured money on the pretext of partial disclosure was against the policy.
Source: Times News Network
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)