annual report 2009-10 - IRDA

ANNUAL REPORT 2009-10II.3.2 The following Table gives details on the petitions/cases disposed/dismissed during the year:TABLE 63PETITION /CASES DISPOSED/DISMISSEDParticularsNo. of CasesWith Withoutdirections directionsto IRDA* to IRDAWrit Petitionsdisposed/ dismissed 7 12Writ Appeals / LPA’sdisposed /dismissed 0 3Review / RestorationPetitions disposed /dismissed 1 0Contempt Petitionsdisposed / dismissed 0 1Consumer casesdisposed/ dismissed 0 7Civil casesdisposed/ dismissed 0 2MACT/MRTP/LokAdalat casesdisposed/ dismissed 0 1TOTAL 8 26*(In six cases, IRDA was directed to dispose the representationsfiled before it; In one case, IRDA was directed to renew thelicence of the petitioner TPA, against which Order, the IRDAhas filed an appeal; In one case, IRDA was permitted towithdraw a letter issued by it rejecting the application ofpetitioner for grant of surveyor licence, with liberty to takedecision in accordance with the law).LPA: Letters Patent AppealSIGNIFICANT ORDERS PASSED DURING 2009-10II.3.3 SLP No. 7598/ of United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Baspa Organics Ltd & Ors before theSupreme Court of IndiaBaspa Organics Ltd., filed a claim before the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)against United India Insurance Co Ltd for repudiatingthe fire insurance claim made by them on the groundthat the policy was taken by them for excessive valueand that material facts had been suppressed at thetime of taking the policy. IRDA was also impleadedas a party to the petition. The NCDRC rejected thegrounds raised by the insurer and directed them topay an amount of `5,31,71,000 to the policyholderwhich order was challenged by the insurer. In theirdefence, IRDA took the plea that it is performingstatutory duties under the IRDA Act and does notrender any service for consideration within themeaning of the Consumer Protection Act.Order: The Supreme Court by its order dated11 th May, 2009, dismissed the petition with theobservation that there were no grounds to interferewith the Order passed by the NCDRC.II.3.4 Case No. 842/08 @ Sripad Commodity &Derivatives P. Ltd. Vs. NIA & Ors before the DistrictConsumer Forum, Hyderabad, APSripad Commodity & Derivatives P. Ltd. filed acomplaint challenging the action of New IndiaAssurance Co. Ltd., in repudiating the claim made bythem under the stock brokers indemnity insurancepolicy, on the ground that the claim did not fall withinthe purview of the policy. IRDA, which was impleaded,as a party, took the plea that it is performing statutoryduties under the IRDA Act, and does not render anyservice for consideration within the meaning of theConsumer Protection Act, and that it was neither aproper nor necessary party to the said proceedingsand on the said basis sought for the deletion of itsname from the array of parties.Order: The Hon’ble Forum accepted the plea of IRDA,and observed that being a statutory body set up byan Act of Parliament, IRDA does not charge any feesor receive any consideration for the functionsdischarged by it and hence, the complainant wouldnot be a consumer vis-à-vis IRDA and thereafter byits Order dated 9 th October, 2009 dismissed thecomplaint.II.3.5 Suit No. 06/2009 @ Harish Kumar Vs NIC &Ors before the Tiz Hazari Court, DelhiSuit filed by the plaintiff, the proprietor of M/s NulifeHospital and Maternity Centre, inter alia, challengingthe termination of contract entered into with the TPA,E-Meditek Solutions Ltd., for providing cashlessfacilities to the patients for undergoing treatment athis medical centre, without citing any reasons thereofand had sought for settlement of payment of dues.65