Page 56 - Insurance Times March 2024

Considering the aforementioned, the Court denied the account, which had enough money in it to meet the
Insurance Company's appeal. The claim's customs duty payments, through an Electronic Clearing Service (ECS)
component was instructed to be paid straight to the Customs arrangement.
Department.
On February 7, 2008, the insurance company notified the
Complainant that the insurance premium was past due and
Bangalore District Commission Holds overdue, which raised an issue. Even though ECS was used
Max New York Life Insurance Co. For to deduct the premiums, the insurance company maintained
Deficiency In Service, Orders To Pay that the amount was not paid. Upon reaching out to the
insurance business, the Complainant was notified that the
Compensation And Legal Costs. error happened due to the insurance firm entering the
incorrect account number twice for the premium deductions.
Lakshmy T Iyengar vs Max New York Life The complainant received assurances that similar errors
Insurance Company Limited and others. would not occur again.

Summary In spite of these guarantees, the insurance company notified
the Complainant once more on October 6, 2009, that her
The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer
insurance policy had lapsed as a result of non-payment of
Disputes Redressal Commission (Karnataka) found Max New
York Life Insurance Company Limited responsible for the the premium. The Complainant tried to resolve the issue by
Complainant's repeated requests for premium payments, getting in touch with the insurance agent she had bought
despite the insurance company's repeated errors in entering the policy from, but the company persisted in demanding
the wrong account number. The insurance company had the January 2008 premium even though they had already
given Mrs. Lakshmy T. Iyengar a policy, which required issued an apology.
monthly premium payments of Rs. 1,006.56.
The complaint and her family suffered greatly as a result of
the constant calls from the call center of the insurance
The Complainant had arranged for her bank to automatically
take the premiums from her account through an Electronic company for payment of insurance premiums as though she
were in arrears. The Additional District Consumer Disputes
Clearing Service (ECS). The insurance company maintained
Redressal Commission-II, Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
that the amount was not paid, despite assurances that
("District Commission") received a consumer complaint from
similar errors would not occur again. The District Commission
ordered the insurance company to compensate the the aggrieved party.
Complainant with Rs 10,000/- and reimburse the complaint The insurance firm said that by falsifying pertinent
for Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.
information in order to obtain unlawful profit, the complaint
was submitted with a hidden agenda. They declared that
About the case the premium deductions bounced twice and flatly refuted
The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer the complaints raised by the complainant. They also refused
Disputes Redressal Commission (Karnataka) bench, which is to accept responsibility for their error.
made up of members Sri B. Devaraju, Smt. V. Anuradha, and
President Vijaykumar M. Pawale, determined that Max The District Commission observed that the bouncing of
New York Life Insurance Company Limited was at fault for premiums was caused by the insurance company's careless
the Complainant's repeated requests for premium entry of the incorrect account number for the ECS. The
payments, despite the insurance company's repeated errors District Commission concluded after reviewing the
in entering the wrong account number. Complainant's evidence that the insurance company was
ultimately responsible for the difficulty that the Complainant
The Max New York Life Insurance Company ("Insurance and her family experienced. The District Commission
Company") had given Mrs. Lakshmy T. Iyengar ordered the insurance firm to compensate the complaint
("Complainant") a policy. Starting on October 6, 2004, the with Rs 10,000/-after deeming the company to have
policy's provisions required monthly premium payments of provided inadequate service. In addition, it mandated that
Rs. 1,006.56. The complainant had arranged for her bank the insurance provider reimburse the complaint for Rs.
to automatically take the monthly premiums from her 5,000 as litigation expenses.

50 March 2024 The Insurance Times