Dear All,
One of employee has filed a case in consumenr court against the Medical Insurance comapny & has also made the compnay MD & HR department as the party. He is still in employement. while the legal department of compnay say that as the default is done by Insurance agency & compnay has fulfilled all its obligation. Now the querry is that can we suspend the employee in question pending the decision of consumar court.
Regards
D K Sharma
From India, Delhi
One of employee has filed a case in consumenr court against the Medical Insurance comapny & has also made the compnay MD & HR department as the party. He is still in employement. while the legal department of compnay say that as the default is done by Insurance agency & compnay has fulfilled all its obligation. Now the querry is that can we suspend the employee in question pending the decision of consumar court.
Regards
D K Sharma
From India, Delhi
What is the misconduct committed by this employee?? I am surprised to see this attitude of suspension even when a person resorts to legal methods. He has taken the matter to Consumer forum and the forum will decide whether his claim is correct or whether the Insurance Company has fulfilled its obligation. Where is the question of taking any action against him??
The Company takes a policy and gets a declaration from the employee. Then he becomes a customer and if he has any dispute on bills settled, he can take it up with Consumer forum alone and he has in fact done the right thing
From India, Chennai
368The Company takes a policy and gets a declaration from the employee. Then he becomes a customer and if he has any dispute on bills settled, he can take it up with Consumer forum alone and he has in fact done the right thing
From India, Chennai
Dear DK Sharma,
You could have given little more information. What is the case about? What kind of insurance claim is this? Why has the employee filed a case against medical insurance company? Who pays the annual premium, company or the employee in his personal capacity? Is MD and HR department are co-petitioners or they are respondents? Before filing a suit, did he inform the company authorities? What efforts company took to avoid litigation?
Legal department of your company says "compnay has fulfilled all its obligation.". What obligations company has fulfilled?
Comments on the quality of the post: - Are you the Head HR of the company? Whether you are Head or not, why you did not check quality of your post? How can you raise post in public forum with inadequate information? Why you did not deem it fit to check the grammar or spelling of the post before raising it? Is this your regular business writing style? If you do not give value to the quality of your writing then do you think that others will give value to you in person or HR in general?
Thanks,
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
You could have given little more information. What is the case about? What kind of insurance claim is this? Why has the employee filed a case against medical insurance company? Who pays the annual premium, company or the employee in his personal capacity? Is MD and HR department are co-petitioners or they are respondents? Before filing a suit, did he inform the company authorities? What efforts company took to avoid litigation?
Legal department of your company says "compnay has fulfilled all its obligation.". What obligations company has fulfilled?
Comments on the quality of the post: - Are you the Head HR of the company? Whether you are Head or not, why you did not check quality of your post? How can you raise post in public forum with inadequate information? Why you did not deem it fit to check the grammar or spelling of the post before raising it? Is this your regular business writing style? If you do not give value to the quality of your writing then do you think that others will give value to you in person or HR in general?
Thanks,
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
He has filed case against the Ins. Co. The MD & HR are just respondents. Nothing wrong committed by the employee. pon
From India, Lucknow
From India, Lucknow
Dear Pon1965,
It appears that you have little confusion with the term "respondent".
When a person files a suit, he/she becomes "petitioner". The party against whom the suit is file is "respondent". Party could individual or company or even state/central government.
Now if the suit is filed against insurance company then how come MD and HR are coming in picture?
The real problem is that originator of the post i.e. DK Sharma has not written his post clearly. Hence the confusion.
Ok...
Dinesh V Divekar
He has filed case against the Ins. Co. The MD & HR are just respondents. Nothing wrong committed by the employee.
pon[/QUOTE]
From India, Bangalore
It appears that you have little confusion with the term "respondent".
When a person files a suit, he/she becomes "petitioner". The party against whom the suit is file is "respondent". Party could individual or company or even state/central government.
Now if the suit is filed against insurance company then how come MD and HR are coming in picture?
The real problem is that originator of the post i.e. DK Sharma has not written his post clearly. Hence the confusion.
Ok...
Dinesh V Divekar
He has filed case against the Ins. Co. The MD & HR are just respondents. Nothing wrong committed by the employee.
pon[/QUOTE]
From India, Bangalore
Dear D. K. Sharma,
I do not find any thing wrong with the worker, who has approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum. Obviously, he must have some grievance against the Insurance Company. If it pertains to your liability for which you have subscribed to the Insurance, then your company is obviously made a formal party to the dispute, which is a normal and prevalent practice.
Just because he made you a party in a case, you cannot put him under suspension. This is neither legal and proper nor justifiable from any corners of law. In case you do any such thing, then you will have to take him back for work as no court will support your action.
I just wonder, how your legal department is raising such issues which are per se illegal.
I am in agreement with the views of Mr. T. Sivasankaran, Mr. Pon1965 and Mr. Diveker.
From India, Kolhapur
I do not find any thing wrong with the worker, who has approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum. Obviously, he must have some grievance against the Insurance Company. If it pertains to your liability for which you have subscribed to the Insurance, then your company is obviously made a formal party to the dispute, which is a normal and prevalent practice.
Just because he made you a party in a case, you cannot put him under suspension. This is neither legal and proper nor justifiable from any corners of law. In case you do any such thing, then you will have to take him back for work as no court will support your action.
I just wonder, how your legal department is raising such issues which are per se illegal.
I am in agreement with the views of Mr. T. Sivasankaran, Mr. Pon1965 and Mr. Diveker.
From India, Kolhapur
[/QUOTE]
Dear Mr.Divekar.
The person files a suit is called - Petitioner.
The insurance Company, MD & HR are respondents. Because, the insurance claims are routed through the employer to the Insurance company, I believe. I think the mediclaim policy is arranged by the employer, may at the cost of employee. Thats why the petitioner implicated the MD & HR as respondents.
Pon
From India, Lucknow
Dear Mr.Divekar.
The person files a suit is called - Petitioner.
The insurance Company, MD & HR are respondents. Because, the insurance claims are routed through the employer to the Insurance company, I believe. I think the mediclaim policy is arranged by the employer, may at the cost of employee. Thats why the petitioner implicated the MD & HR as respondents.
Pon
From India, Lucknow
Hello D K Sharma,
Irrespective of the tone & tenor of Dinesh V Divekar's remarks about your Posting, I think it's in YOUR interest to give as many details as possible.
This not only resolves/clarifies your issue/problem FASTER but also helps to save & better utilize OTHER'S TIME. If you noticed, all the members who responded ended-up PRESUMING the details before making suggestions. Do you think/feel this was what YOU wanted?
I think NOT--since you wouldn't have reached the level you are @ now [Head HR] IF this had been your standard approach while interacting with people--including employees.
Suggest give more details so that the members can give you more accurate & practical suggestions--WITHOUT spending more time than necessary to understand the issue.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Irrespective of the tone & tenor of Dinesh V Divekar's remarks about your Posting, I think it's in YOUR interest to give as many details as possible.
This not only resolves/clarifies your issue/problem FASTER but also helps to save & better utilize OTHER'S TIME. If you noticed, all the members who responded ended-up PRESUMING the details before making suggestions. Do you think/feel this was what YOU wanted?
I think NOT--since you wouldn't have reached the level you are @ now [Head HR] IF this had been your standard approach while interacting with people--including employees.
Suggest give more details so that the members can give you more accurate & practical suggestions--WITHOUT spending more time than necessary to understand the issue.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Sateesh,
Tone and tenor of my first post was little critical because of the egregiousness of the post.
There are two things when we write, one is structure and second is grammar and punctuation. Since this is informal group, we may not follow the latter to its last detail but then former's importance cannot be diluted. Failure in either would have made this post preposterous. But the poster has failed on both the counts and thereby making the post egregious.
Had the query been written by some junior cadre person like HR Asst or HR Executive, it would have been understandable but obviously not by the stature of the person of Head HR.
I am given to understand that you are quite senior person. Therefore, you must have seen those good old days of typewriter. Secretaries or typists typed the drafts couple of times before their finalisation. The signatory of the letter, considered it as his/her prestige to sign the letters. In today's virtual world, that prestige has vanished into thin air but then today newer facilities are there which were not there in erstwhile era. All that is required is to write post in MS Word. Most of the spell check and grammar check is done by MS Word. Is it that difficult to do? One who finds it difficult then he/she deserves criticism and not coddling.
Thanks and regards,
Dinesh V Divekar
Hello D K Sharma,
Irrespective of the tone & tenor of Dinesh V Divekar's remarks about your Posting, I think it's in YOUR interest to give as many details as possible.
This not only resolves/clarifies your issue/problem FASTER but also helps to save & better utilize OTHER'S TIME. If you noticed, all the members who responded ended-up PRESUMING the details before making suggestions. Do you think/feel this was what YOU wanted?
I think NOT--since you wouldn't have reached the level you are @ now [Head HR] IF this had been your standard approach while interacting with people--including employees.
Suggest give more details so that the members can give you more accurate & practical suggestions--WITHOUT spending more time than necessary to understand the issue.
Rgds,
TS[/QUOTE]
From India, Bangalore
Tone and tenor of my first post was little critical because of the egregiousness of the post.
There are two things when we write, one is structure and second is grammar and punctuation. Since this is informal group, we may not follow the latter to its last detail but then former's importance cannot be diluted. Failure in either would have made this post preposterous. But the poster has failed on both the counts and thereby making the post egregious.
Had the query been written by some junior cadre person like HR Asst or HR Executive, it would have been understandable but obviously not by the stature of the person of Head HR.
I am given to understand that you are quite senior person. Therefore, you must have seen those good old days of typewriter. Secretaries or typists typed the drafts couple of times before their finalisation. The signatory of the letter, considered it as his/her prestige to sign the letters. In today's virtual world, that prestige has vanished into thin air but then today newer facilities are there which were not there in erstwhile era. All that is required is to write post in MS Word. Most of the spell check and grammar check is done by MS Word. Is it that difficult to do? One who finds it difficult then he/she deserves criticism and not coddling.
Thanks and regards,
Dinesh V Divekar
Hello D K Sharma,
Irrespective of the tone & tenor of Dinesh V Divekar's remarks about your Posting, I think it's in YOUR interest to give as many details as possible.
This not only resolves/clarifies your issue/problem FASTER but also helps to save & better utilize OTHER'S TIME. If you noticed, all the members who responded ended-up PRESUMING the details before making suggestions. Do you think/feel this was what YOU wanted?
I think NOT--since you wouldn't have reached the level you are @ now [Head HR] IF this had been your standard approach while interacting with people--including employees.
Suggest give more details so that the members can give you more accurate & practical suggestions--WITHOUT spending more time than necessary to understand the issue.
Rgds,
TS[/QUOTE]
From India, Bangalore
Hello Dinesh V Divekar,
While there CAN be different ways on how to view D K Sharma's Posting, I would like to offer a different perspective on your remark "............then he/she deserves criticism and not coddling".
Criticism--YES, by all means. But NOT the individual. It's what the person has done/said/written that's the cause of your response/reaction. So suggest pl focus on THE ACTION rather than the person--since your [like others including mine] intent is to CORRECT & IMPROVE the person. Like Mahatma Gandhi said: 'Hate the action, not the actor' [or something to that effect].
There's very little AND YET a lot of difference between saying "what you did is wrong" AND "what you did is not right" AND "you are wrong" AND "you are not right"--a subtle/fine line segregating each of them, but totally changing how it's perceived by the reader.
That's what you, other members & I tried to do [each in his own style]--it's another issue whether DK Sharma takes the suggestion(s) & makes amends & improves himself. But that's HIS problem--this Forum has done it's job to make SINCERE ATTEMPTS in correcting a NEW member.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
While there CAN be different ways on how to view D K Sharma's Posting, I would like to offer a different perspective on your remark "............then he/she deserves criticism and not coddling".
Criticism--YES, by all means. But NOT the individual. It's what the person has done/said/written that's the cause of your response/reaction. So suggest pl focus on THE ACTION rather than the person--since your [like others including mine] intent is to CORRECT & IMPROVE the person. Like Mahatma Gandhi said: 'Hate the action, not the actor' [or something to that effect].
There's very little AND YET a lot of difference between saying "what you did is wrong" AND "what you did is not right" AND "you are wrong" AND "you are not right"--a subtle/fine line segregating each of them, but totally changing how it's perceived by the reader.
That's what you, other members & I tried to do [each in his own style]--it's another issue whether DK Sharma takes the suggestion(s) & makes amends & improves himself. But that's HIS problem--this Forum has done it's job to make SINCERE ATTEMPTS in correcting a NEW member.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Prolonged Suspension of the employee.docx