Jet Air­ways told to pay as com­pen­sa­tion

THE AIR­LINE HAD, ON MAY 22, RE­FUSED BOARD­ING PASS TO A LO­CAL, SAY­ING THAT SEATS ARE FULL

Hindustan Times (Chandigarh) - Live - - SPORT/IN & AROUND - HT Live Cor­re­spon­dent chdlivedesk@hin­dus­tan­times.com

CHANDI­GARH: The Dis­trict Con­sumer Dis­putes Re­dres­sal Forum has pe­nalised Jet Air­ways and di­rected them to pay Rs15,000 to the com­plainants as com­pen­sa­tion for men­tal and phys­i­cal harass­ment suf­fered by them.

The com­plainants, Ram Chan­der and his daugh­ter Preeti Bala were to at­tend a train­ing at Tri­van­drum. The said train­ing was sched­uled from May23 to 27, 2011.

In or­der to un­dergo the train­ing, Ram pur­chased an air ticket for his daugh­ter from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram on May 22 by pay­ing Rs10,200. The ticket was pur­chased through Haryana Trav­els, Chandi­garh, and was a con­firmed ticket of May22,2011 from Delhi. Preeti Bala ap­proached the of­fi­cials of Jet Air­ways at the des­ig­nated place and re­quested for is­suance of board­ing pass.

To her sur­prise, the of­fi­cial present re­fused to is­sue the board­ing pass on the pre­text that there is no seat in the air­craft de­spite the best ef­forts she was not per­mit­ted to un­der­take the jour­ney on that date and no board­ing pass was is­sued to her. She was rather is­sued the board­ing pass for the next day and ul­ti­mately she trav­elled the next day.

The air­ways in their re­ply stated that the board­ing pass was de­nied to the com­plainant as she reached late and the other pas­sen­ger, who was in the wait­ing list, were given the board­ing pass.

The forum ob­served that the com­plaint, sup­ported by the duly sworn af­fi­davits reached the air­port be­fore 6am whereas the sched­uled de­par­ture time of the flight was 8am.

In these cir­cum­stances, the com­plainants were well in time. So, the de­nial of board­ing pass de­spite the fact that she had a con­firmed ticket cer­tainly amounts to de­fi­ciency in ser­vice. The forum hence di­rected Jet Air­ways to pay Rs15,000 to the com­plainants as com­pen­sa­tion for men­tal and phys­i­cal harass­ment along with Rs.7,000 as lit­i­ga­tion ex­penses. HDFC IN­SUR­ANCE FIRM PE­NALISED

The Dis­trict Con­sumer Dis­putes Re­dres­sal Forum has pe­nalised HDFC Ergo Gen­eral In­sur­ance Com­pany Lim­ited and di­rected them to pay Rs.30,000 to the com­plainant as com­pen­sa­tion for men­tal agony and harass­ment.

The com­plainant, Aman­deep Kaur of Chandi­garh took a pol­icy known as Star Pack­age Plus from HDFC Ergo Gen­eral In­sur­ance Com­pany Lim­ited for the pe­riod Septem­ber 7, to Septem­ber 6, 2011 and the said pol­icy was also ex­tended to her hus­band and son for the said pe­riod and she had also paid a pre­mium of Rs.17,132.

Ac­cord­ing to the com­plainant, on April11, 2011, her hus­band was taken to a hospi­tal at Sri Gan­gana­gar (Ra­jasthan).

The doc­tor con­ducted the pre­lim­i­nary tests and re­ferred the pa­tient to Delhi Heart In­sti­tute and Re­search Cen­tre. The com­plainant took her hus­band to the said in­sti­tute and the doc­tors present there con­ducted a num­ber of tests and the pa­tient was di­ag­nosed as suf­fer­ing from coro­nary artery dis­ease. Sub­se­quently he was re-ad­mit­ted at For­tis Hospi­tal, Mo­hali and was also op­er­ated upon.

Ac­cord­ing to the com­plainant, she paid for the treat­ment from her own pocket.

Af­ter dis­charge from the hospi­tal, the com­plainant sub­mit­ted the claim along­with all the rel­e­vant doc­u­ments. How­ever, the claim was re­pu­di­ated on the ground that her hus­band was hav­ing a pre-ex­ist­ing dis­ease.

The com­pany in their re­ply stated that the com­plainant did not dis­close the true facts at the time of is­suance of the pol­icy and con­cealed the fact re­gard­ing the pre­vi­ous ail­ment of her hus­band.

The forum ob­served that there is no ma­te­rial on record to prove that com­plainant’s hus­band was hav­ing a pre-ex­ist­ing dis­ease at the time of tak­ing the ad­mis­sion.

Thus, re­pu­di­a­tion of the claim by the in­sur­ance com­pany on the ground that the hus­band of the com­plainant was hav­ing a pre-ex­ist­ing dis­ease is ab­so­lutely wrong and is not based on proper ap­pre­ci­a­tion of the doc­u­ments placed be­fore it.

The forum di­rected that this amounted to de­fi­ciency in ser­vice and to in­dem­nify the ex­pen­di­ture in­curred by the com­plainant on the treat­ment of her hus­band to the per­mis­si­ble ex­tent un­der the pro­vi­sions of the pol­icy in ques­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.