View 2263 Cases Against Hdfc Ergo General Insurance
View 45666 Cases Against General Insurance
Dr. Navneet Kumar filed a consumer case on 26 Oct 2022 against HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/377/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Nov 2022.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,
U.T. CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. | : | CC/377/2019 |
Date of Institution | : | 17/05/2019 |
Date of Decision | : | 26/10/2022 |
Dr. Navneet Kumar S/o Sh.Darshan Kumar R/o H.No.612/2 Omax Cassia, New Chandigarh, Punjab.
… Complainant
V E R S U S
… Opposite Parties
CORAM : | PAWANJIT SINGH | PRESIDENT |
| SURJEET KAUR | MEMBER |
| SURESH KUMAR SARDANA | MEMBER |
ARGUED BY | : | Mrs.Aruna Sachdeva, Counsel for Complainant. |
| : | Nitesh Singhi, Counsel for OPs. |
The complainant is a specialist doctor in Anesthesia and his MBBS and MD degrees are from GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh. As per complainant, his services were terminated from the ESI Hospital Baddi on the ground that he had his total two spells of SR (Anesthesia) for 3 years were over (Annexure C-3). The complainant remained without service for more than two months and thereafter he joined Max Hospital, Mohali. The complainant wrote to the OPs about termination of his services and loss of job. He had filed his claim under loss of job clause. They were settle his claim for 3 EMIs of housing loan. The OP No.1 while repudiating his claim wrote to the complainant that his claim is rejected because his job was contractual (Annexure C-4). The OP No.1 has cited that loss of job due to reasons other than retrenchment as a result of mergers and acquisition is not covered. But the complainant is a doctor by profession, therefore, such a situation like retrenchment will never arise. The complainant got tired and harassed after sending a number of emails, personal visits and by not getting any response submitted a legal notice through his counsel but the respondent did not respond to it (Annexure C-5). Hence, this complaint.
“C. Exclusions Applicable to Section 5
a. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
b. Any claim relating to unemployment from a job which is casual, temporary, seasonal or contractual in nature or any claim related to an employee not on the direct rolls of the employer.
c. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
d. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”.
As per exclusions applicable of the terms and conditions of the policy, it is very clearly mentioned therein that the company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of any claim relating to unemployment from a job which is casual, temporary, seasonal or contractual. On perusal of the Annexure R-4 & R-6, it is observed that the job of the complainant was contractual in nature and same was excluded under the policy as discussed above. Hence, we are of the concerted view that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated as per settled terms and conditions of the policy and OPs were not found deficient in providing service or found to be involved in unfair trade practice.
|
|
| Sd/- |
26/10/2022 |
|
| [Pawanjit Singh] |
Ls |
|
| President |
|
|
| Sd/- |
|
|
| [Surjeet Kaur] |
|
|
| Member |
|
|
| Sd/- |
|
|
| [Suresh Kumar Sardana] |
|
|
| Member |
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.