Marriage 'doesn't stabilise relationships'

Although married couples are less likely to separate than live-in couples, marriage is not the reason behind this phenomenon, claims IFS, an influential UK think-tank.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that those who marry are simply more likely to be older, better educated and wealthier than those who have babies out of wedlock.

On the other hand, couples living together tend to be younger and less well off, with fewer educational qualifications, and are less likely to have planned their pregnancy.

The claim is aimed at the Government's objective of preventing family breakdown by promoting marriage.

"The evidence suggests that much of the difference in relationship stability between married and cohabiting parents is due to pre-existing differences between the kinds of people who get married before they have children, compared to those that cohabit," The Telegraph quoted Ellen Greaves, research economist at the IFS, as saying.

"While married couples have more stable relationships than couples who cohabit, this is not because they are married, but because of the other characteristics they have that lead to marriage," concluded the report.

Rs 1 lakh fine slapped on hospital for deficiency in service

Mohali, September 23
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed the Grecian Super Speciality Hospital to pay a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to a Chandigarh resident for alleged deficiency in service.
BS Mehandiratta, president of the forum, ordered that the Grecian Hospital and Dr Vinod Nimbran, oncologist, should pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs1 lakh within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If this compensation was not paid within the aforesaid period, it would carry interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of actual payment. The opposite parties were also asked to pay litigation costs of Rs 5,000. Satwant Kaur, resident of Sector 10, Chandigarh, told the forum that she was diagnosed as a case of breast cancer by the Command Hospital, Chandigarh, and advised mastectomy procedure to be performed at the earliest. She was referred to Grecian Hospital, one of the empanelled hospitals under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS).
She was advised certain tests but during the process she got the impression that the hospital was allegedly prolonging the time line in order to justify the additional charges. Finally, the surgery was done on September 12, 2009. The complainant , however, got restless and frustrated due to the casual and indecisive behaviour of the doctors and other paramedical staff. A programme for administering her chemotherapy was planned after her discharge.
The complainant further alleged that her first chemotherapy was administered by a nurse without the personal supervision of any doctor amounting to negligence on the part of the hospital. The second cycle was also not carried out in a satisfactory manner.
The complainant alleged that the aforesaid acts of commission and omission on the part of the hospital amounted to deficiency of service. The hospital delayed the action and procedure at every stage, which was sure to have reduced the life span of the complainant and also caused her to bear pain and trauma for removal of her breast.
The opposite parties in their joint written statement have denied the allegations of the complainant. They have stated that in case the complainant was not satisfied with the treatment given by them or with the first cycle of chemotherapy, she could not have visited them again. The fact that she came to them for chemotherapy repeatedly showed that she was satisfied with their treatment. They have denied that at the time of administration of chemotherapy to the complainant, no doctor was present and have stated that Dr Ashutosh Mukharjee, who is MD, radiation oncologist, and was a consultant, had planned and administered the drug in his presence. The husband of the complainant at the time of every discharge filled feed back and satisfactory treatment/investigation certificate form.
The miraculous recovery of the complainant was possible only because of good treatment by the hospital and their doctors. Denying any deficiency of service on their part, the opposite parties have sought dismissal of the complaint. 

Fresh case against Healthyway Immigration owner

Chandigarh, September 22
The Chandigarh police has registered a fresh case against Amit Kakkar, owner of Healthyway Immigrations. In the fresh FIR registered at the police station-36, the police has named 46 complainants who were allegedly duped by the company in 2010.
This is the 10th case registered against owners of Healthyway Immigrations. DSP Anil Joshi said the case was registered after scores of complainants approached them after the booking of Kakkar in a similar fraud case. The total amount of fraud is estimated at over Rs 30 lakh. All complainants alleged that they were duped by the company on false promises of easy migration overseas. The UT Police will now move an application in the court seeking his police custody again.
Source: The Tribune

Mohali Consumer Court directs dealer to pay cost of Swift car

Mohali, September 22
Mohali-based car dealer Chittosho Motor has been directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to pay Rs 5,34,970, the cost price of a Maruti Swift VDI car, to a Phase-VII resident on account of damage to the vehicle while with the agency for periodic service.
Holding the car dealer responsible for negligence and carelessness, the forum, comprising BS Mehandiratta, president, and SS Dhaliwal and HK Ghuman, members, directed the car dealer to pay 9 per cent per annum as interest with effect from May 8 till the date of payment.
The complainant, Ranjai Sanadi, had stated that he purchased a new car from the agency on November 4 the previous year and left it with the agency for periodic service on May 8.
He added that the company informed him during service that there was a minor problem with the car, but when he visited the agency, he found his car badly damaged.
He further said the company failed to give him a satisfactory reply on enquiry and refused to replace the car, with repeated representations to the agency failing to elicit a response.
The agency denied damaging the car. It stated that it was ready to replace the damaged parts of the car free of cost.
After hearing the arguments, the forum observed that the depressed and pensive state of mind of a consumer could be imagined when the vehicle purchased by him with his hard-earned income was damaged due to the negligence and carelessness of those with whom were entrusted for repairs and who were supposed to keep it in safe custody.

Andhra Bank penalised Rs 38,300 by Chandigarh Consumer Court

Chandigarh, September 22
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Andhra Bank to pay Rs 38,300 to a Sector 22-B resident for its failure to forward the premium amount to an insurance company, besides levying Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation.
The district forum, comprising its president Lakshman Sharma, and members Madhu Mutneja and Jaswinder Singh Sidhu, in its order stated that the bank could recover the amount from the official(s) concerned, if the management so desired, by following proper rules.
The complainant, Shyam Lal Gupta, had pleaded that United India Insurance Company had floated “AB-Arogyadan” mediclaim policy for account holders and as he had an account with the bank, he opted for the mediclaim policy.
He said even though he had verbally directed the official concerned to debit the premium amount for the renewal of the policy on June 18, 2006 besides filling a renewal authorisation letter sent by the insurance company, the opposite party debited the amount on July 12 by which time the policy had expired.
Meanwhile, his wife was admitted to a private eye hospital for operation of the right eye. He said when he sent the request for pre-authorisation to Good Health Plan Ltd for cashless treatment, the same was declined on grounds that there was a 23-day break in the renewal of the policy, which was treated as a fresh policy, and one-year exclusion was applicable as per insurance norms.
As a result, he had to pay Rs 38,000 from his own pocket towards the medical treatment of his wife.
The counsel for the opposite party argued that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was supposed to deposit the cheque/DD with the bank for collecting the applicable premium for debiting the same to the insurance company.
The complainants had also failed to mention their account number maintained with the bank on the renewal authorisation letter. He also denied that the complainant ever requested the officer of the bank for debiting the premium to the insurance company.

NRIs can now open joint accounts with resident Indian

MUMBAI: Liberalising the foreign exchange rules, the Reserve Bank today allowed NRIs to hold joint account with Indian residents, a move that would help increase remittances.

The central bank has also permitted sale proceeds of foreign investments in India to accrue to NRE/FCNR accounts after tax deductions, under the Foreign Exchange Management Act.

Foreign Currency Non-Resident (FCNR) account and Non-Resident External (NRE) account are opened by Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) with the Indian banks.

As per the recommendations of the committee constituted to review facilities available under FEMA, the central bank has taken such steps.

RBI has allowed residents of India to include non-resident close relative in their resident bank accounts on 'former or survivor' basis. However, such non-resident relative shall not be eligible to operate the account during resident's lifetime, it said in a notification.

It also permitted NRIs to open NRE/FCNR account with their resident close relative. In this case, the resident relative can operate the account as a power of attorney holder.

Similarly, the central bank has doubled the slab under which securities worth USD 50,000 per fiscal can be transferred by resident Indians to non-resident individuals 'by way of gift' from the present level of USD 25,000.

RBI has also allowed resident individuals to include resident close relative in their EEFC (Exchange Earners Foreign Currency) or RFC(Resident Foreign Currency) as a joint account holder.

Custodial death: HC dismisses Punjab’s plea

Chandigarh, September 21

The State of Punjab’s attempts to wriggle out of a tight corner, in a case involving the death of an undertrial in jail due to delayed medical treatment, have failed to find favour with the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Dismissing the State’s appeal, a Division Bench has not only upheld the interim compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh granted to the inmate’s widow Krishna Devi, but also ruled there was negligence on the part of the jail authorities in providing timely aid.
The State had filed the appeal against the Single Judge’s orders, even though Moga Deputy Commissioner had also recommended in his letter dated October 17, 2006, the grant of Rs 2.5 lakh as assistance to the widow and her family.
Taking up the matter, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice M.M. Kumar and Justice Gurdev Singh asserted: “This is a case of custodial death. The State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal against order dated December 14, 2010, whereby the Single Judge allowed the compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh to the widow of the deceased, after recording the finding that there was failure to perform duty by the jail authorities with due diligence”.
The Bench added: “The basis of the finding was that the undertrial was not suffering from any ailment, which could be the cause of his sudden death.
The jail authorities did not even assert that he was rushed to the hospital timely and was given medical aid.
“A hale and hearty person having no ailment history and who earns his livelihood by selling eatables on a bicycle could not have met with a sudden death but for the lack of timely medical assistance.
Observing the undertrial was a BPL ration card holder, the Bench added: “We are of the considered opinion that no interference in this appeal filed by the State would be warranted.
“The meagre amount of Rs 2.5 lakh awarded as compensation to the widow of the deceased and her family cannot be regarded as without a reasonable cause.
There is negligence on the part of the jail authorities to grant timely medical aid to the jail inmate. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed”.