Kanoria Industries had purchased a Ford Ikon car, insured with National Insurance. In October 2005, the company changed its name to Bagalkot Udyog and the change was noted in the records of the registrar of companies. However, the change of name was not notified to the regional transport office (RTO).
The vehicle met with an accident on December 24, 2006. A claim was lodged but National Insurance refused to honour it, as the vehicle stood in the name of Kanoria Industries. A representation to the insurer's grievance cell failed to yield a positive response.
Bagalkot Udyog filed a complaint before the South Mumbai District Forum, claiming Rs 3,64,142 towards the loss caused on account of accident, Rs 21,045 towards parking charges levied by the garage where the car was sent for repairs, Rs 50,000 towards compensation and Rs 25,000 towards costs. The insurance company justified the repudiation, saying Bagalkot Udyog had no right to make a claim in respect of a vehicle in the name of Kanoria Industries. The Forum upheld the insurance company's stand and dismissed the complaint.
Bagalkot appealed to the Maharashtra State Commission, which noted the deputy registrar of companies had issued a fresh certificate of incorporation due to change of the company's name. At the time of renewal of the policy, the company ideally ought to have asked the insurer to issue the policy in the changed name. However, failure to update the RTO records or the policy documents would not make any material difference, as there was no transfer or change in ownership of the vehicle, but a mere change in the name of the owner of the vehicle.
In a judgment delivered by Chavan on December 17, 2014, on behalf of the bench with Dhanraj Khamatkar, the State Commission concluded the complaint ought not to have been dismissed by taking a hyper-technical view. Since the surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs 1,95,000, the Commission directed this be paid to Bagalkot Udyog along with 12 per cent interest from January 4, 2007, when the claim was lodged, till actual payment. Additionally, costs of Rs 10,000 were awarded.
In another case, Gulam Patel was admitted to Inamdar Multi Speciality Hospital in Pune. He was over-charged Rs 1,756 for medicines and billed Rs 100 for a pathology test which was not done, charged Rs 800 towards a specialist's visit fee which was not necessary, and levied Rs 1,086 as administrative charges. The needle for injecting saline was not inserted properly by the nursing staff, which caused pain and suffering. He claimed damages of Rs 90,000 in a complaint filed before the Pune District Forum against Inamdar Hospital and its owner, Parvez Inamdar.
The hospital contested the complaint, denying any negligence or wrong billing. The Forum held there was negligence. It ordered a refund of the amounts wrongly charged and awarded compensation of Rs 23,000. The hospital appealed to the Maharashtra State Commission, contending it was a charitable trust hospital, with Parvez Inamdar was the medical director. It was argued the complaint was not maintainable either against Inamdar Hospital as there was a separate trust running it, nor against Parvez Inamdar as he had not treated Gulam Patel.
The Commission observed the licence issued under the Shops and Establishment Act was in the name of Inamdar Hospital. This was later changed to Crescent India Medical Education Trust, with Parvez Inamdar as the employer. So, the Commission concluded a complaint against Inamdar Hospital was maintainable, as this name appeared in the licence. However, Dr Inamdar could not be held personally liable, since he had not treated the patient.
The Commission held the specialist had taken a few hours to visit the patient but had attended on the patient. His visit fees were payable. The hospital was held liable to refund the other charges towards over-billing for medicines, charging for tests not carried out, etc. For the swelling of the hand which took five months to recover, the Commission reduced the compensation to Rs 10,000 but awarded costs of Rs 3,000.
To avoid hassles, it is advisable to ensure names are correctly mentioned and records updated.
The author is a consumer activist
The vehicle met with an accident on December 24, 2006. A claim was lodged but National Insurance refused to honour it, as the vehicle stood in the name of Kanoria Industries. A representation to the insurer's grievance cell failed to yield a positive response.
Bagalkot Udyog filed a complaint before the South Mumbai District Forum, claiming Rs 3,64,142 towards the loss caused on account of accident, Rs 21,045 towards parking charges levied by the garage where the car was sent for repairs, Rs 50,000 towards compensation and Rs 25,000 towards costs. The insurance company justified the repudiation, saying Bagalkot Udyog had no right to make a claim in respect of a vehicle in the name of Kanoria Industries. The Forum upheld the insurance company's stand and dismissed the complaint.
Bagalkot appealed to the Maharashtra State Commission, which noted the deputy registrar of companies had issued a fresh certificate of incorporation due to change of the company's name. At the time of renewal of the policy, the company ideally ought to have asked the insurer to issue the policy in the changed name. However, failure to update the RTO records or the policy documents would not make any material difference, as there was no transfer or change in ownership of the vehicle, but a mere change in the name of the owner of the vehicle.
In a judgment delivered by Chavan on December 17, 2014, on behalf of the bench with Dhanraj Khamatkar, the State Commission concluded the complaint ought not to have been dismissed by taking a hyper-technical view. Since the surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs 1,95,000, the Commission directed this be paid to Bagalkot Udyog along with 12 per cent interest from January 4, 2007, when the claim was lodged, till actual payment. Additionally, costs of Rs 10,000 were awarded.
In another case, Gulam Patel was admitted to Inamdar Multi Speciality Hospital in Pune. He was over-charged Rs 1,756 for medicines and billed Rs 100 for a pathology test which was not done, charged Rs 800 towards a specialist's visit fee which was not necessary, and levied Rs 1,086 as administrative charges. The needle for injecting saline was not inserted properly by the nursing staff, which caused pain and suffering. He claimed damages of Rs 90,000 in a complaint filed before the Pune District Forum against Inamdar Hospital and its owner, Parvez Inamdar.
The hospital contested the complaint, denying any negligence or wrong billing. The Forum held there was negligence. It ordered a refund of the amounts wrongly charged and awarded compensation of Rs 23,000. The hospital appealed to the Maharashtra State Commission, contending it was a charitable trust hospital, with Parvez Inamdar was the medical director. It was argued the complaint was not maintainable either against Inamdar Hospital as there was a separate trust running it, nor against Parvez Inamdar as he had not treated Gulam Patel.
The Commission observed the licence issued under the Shops and Establishment Act was in the name of Inamdar Hospital. This was later changed to Crescent India Medical Education Trust, with Parvez Inamdar as the employer. So, the Commission concluded a complaint against Inamdar Hospital was maintainable, as this name appeared in the licence. However, Dr Inamdar could not be held personally liable, since he had not treated the patient.
The Commission held the specialist had taken a few hours to visit the patient but had attended on the patient. His visit fees were payable. The hospital was held liable to refund the other charges towards over-billing for medicines, charging for tests not carried out, etc. For the swelling of the hand which took five months to recover, the Commission reduced the compensation to Rs 10,000 but awarded costs of Rs 3,000.
To avoid hassles, it is advisable to ensure names are correctly mentioned and records updated.
The author is a consumer activist