Reliance Health policy is not trustable because the time of purchase they told that this-this also covered in this policy but the time of claim they do not pay costly medicines and say that it was not covered in this plan and cashless policy is very typical after hospitalization have paid 40 to 50% amount of total bill. so avoid reliance health policy…………………..

Never Purchase Reliance Health Policy and avoid Medi Asst. TPA bcoz. both are Very claver and do not clear real claims.

I support this complaint. I am continuing this policy for the last Four yrs (Silver Plan policy No. 1303********0323) Last yr 28-02-10 to 27-04-2011 annual premium
Rs. 4602/- but next this year u r asking for near about 18,000/- because I am retired official, I would not be able tp pay increased heavy premium as mentioned above, so that your old customer stay with you for long period.

I support this complaint.
same case with me, till last year my annual premium was around 3400. this year reliance gi is asking for 12510. I am calling up their customer care but line seems busy. totally unacceptable.

I support this complaint. They sent a letter to me like you indicated above. I have been sent an email to them and waiting for their reply. I found that it is a common technique to avoid the existing people from the reliance Health wise policy. Similar letter has been received by friends who they took the same policy of Reliance.

They never want Re-Alliance!!!!

Hari
www.mathsblog.in
Kerala

I support this complaint. They sent a letter to me like you indicated above. I have been sent an email to them and waiting for their reply. I found that it is a common technique to avoid the existing people from the reliance Health wise policy. Similar letter has been received by friends who they took the same policy of Reliance.

They never want Re-Alliance!!!!

Hari
www.mathsblog.in
Kerala

I support this complaint.

I support this complaint.
I am facing the same problem with Bajaj Allianz. When enquired for further clarification, i was bluntly told it is as per the IRDA regulations.
As per the news, the premium would be higher by a max of 15%. But i'm facing a increase of almost 50%.
IRDA should come up with some explanation so that the common man can understand it and not be cheated.

I support this complaint.

I had taken a policy for Healthwise policy 2 years back initial premium was around Rs. 5000/-. Had never made any claim till date. Yet my renewal premium has been increased to 18000/-. This is not renewal of policy. This is robbery. No wonder Reliance group companies have grown so big in short span of time. I am never ever going to buy any Reliance group product again. I am sure the complaint is not going to have any impact. This is just a way to share our frustration with the 420 company.

I support this complaint., reliance is a big cheating company

I support this complaint.

I support this complaint. The renewal, for my family floater healthwise silver policy which I bought for around 4000 for in november 2009, is around 14700 for one year now. which is around 3.5 times from last years premium. No guarantee it would'n increase next year more, if I renew this year.

I support this complaint.

ESP. MR Amit Mohan Gupta
Lucknow
Mob: +91 ********75 AND

Mr Harjinder Juneja
1/639 Sector-H, Jankipuram
Lucknow
Harjinder_juneja@yahoo.com



and would also like to take action against RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE3 CO LTD.
PL READ AS TO HOW WE HAVE ALREADY TACKLED RELIANCE THRU A PETITION.


13-11-10


FROM

kuldeep singh thind
kuldeepsinghthind@gmail.com


I PURCHASED A RELIANCE HEALTH POLICY 1102********5246 EXACTLY 2 YEARS AGO AND HAVE PAID ON TIME AND NEVER LODGED A REMBURSEMENT.

THEY DO NOT ATTEND CALLS PERSONALLY AFTER PROMSING TO COME PERSONALLY. THEY ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN GETTING POLICIES ONLY FROM US.

THIS YEAR I WANTED TO REMOVE CERTAIN DOUBTS .BUT INSPITE OF COMPLAINT NOS 222544 IN NOV THEY NEVER RESPONT TO MY QUERIES AND WILL NOT LET THEIR SENIORS COME ON LINE.

THIS IS HOW WE MADE RELIANCE REPLY TO OUR QUERIES IN THE LAST 2 YRS..
WE FILED A PETITION QAND COLLE3CTED 400 PERSONS AT BANDRA RECLAMATION MUMBAY AND THE RESULT WAS THAT 400000 [LAC ] CUSTOMERS SHIFTEDF TO TATA ELECTRIC.

I AM ENCL THE PETITION WHICH WAS FILED AGST. RELIANCE SO THAT ON SIMILAR SYSTEM ALL OF US CAN COLLECT THOUSANDS OF EMAILS AND I WILL SEND TO THE RECEPIENTS WARNING THEM ABOUT RELIANCE AND SHODDY CONDUCT.


FURTHER IN CASE ANY OF YOU FRIENDS HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH RELIAMCE ENERGY PL DO AS MENTIONED BELOW.





PL CUT AND PASTE the below format with your particulars filled in to
mercindia@mercindia .org.in

******


BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, MUMBAI.
(MERC Case No. 119 of 2008) (MERC Case No. 120 of 2008) (MERC Case No. 121 of 2008)

In the matter of:
Annual Performance Review (APR) Petition for FY 2008-09 under MYT framework, truing up for FY 2007-08 and determination of ARR and tariff for FY 2009-10

The Applicant …………………………(Name)
Having address at ……………………………………………………………………..………………
Tel/Mobile ………..…………….. Email: …………………..
(hereinafter referred to as the Applicant).
And
The Petitioner: Reliance Infrastructure Limited,
Reliance Energy Centre, Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai – 400055 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Petitioner”).

PUBLIC RESPONSE
The Applicant has downloaded copy of the Petition document as per the Petitioner’s Public Notice which appeared in various newspapers. The Applicant would also like to be heard in person at the Public Hearing presently scheduled for 26-3-2008. The Applicant has gone through all the Petitions, and prays as under:

1. The Hon’ble MERC NOT to grant any tariff hike at present and to consider any tariff increase only after 31.3.2010 (since it has determined the Multi Year Tariff (MYT) Control period of 3 years) in compliance with MYT principles laid down by Section 61 (f) of Electricity Act, 2003 (EA 2003) and National Tariff Policy, 2006.
2. The Hon’ble MERC to comply with Section 62(3) of the EA 2003 and treat the cost of electricity to be Cost to Serve.
3. The Hon’ble MERC to consider 425 paise/unit as the Cost of Supply and cap the maximum price at 510 paise/unit to all the consumers of Mumbai as Average Cost of Supply for TPC Mumbai is Rs 6.65 per kWh while for (sister concern of TATA) NDPL Delhi 5.19 per kWh and Average cost of supply for Reliance Mumbai is Rs 7.43 per kWh while for (sister concern of Reliance) BSES Delhi 5.40 per kWh
4. The Hon’ble MERC to immediately disallow levy of Reliability Charges.
5. The Hon’ble MERC to immediately disallow levy of Fuel Adjustment Charge on ‘costly power’ as there is no provision in EA 2003 to increase tariff once in a year (except cost variation in fuel). FAC to be understood by the consultants of Hon’ble MERC and post on the net detailing the levy in compliance with Section 82 of the MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations 2005 and relevant provisions of EA 2003.
6. The Hon’ble MERC to advise State Government to directly help poor people with subsidy by a separate fund, to eliminate cross subsidy complying with the Section 65 of EA 2003, Section 8.3 and 8.2 (3) of National Tariff Policy & other Regulations. The State Government may be asked to determine the amount of subsidy, if any.
7. The Hon’ble MERC to determine tariff of a Distribution company only after determining tariff of Generation company and Transmission company.
8. The Hon’ble MERC to direct its Consultants to justify rates specified in the Petition comparing with all ERCs in our country and put the same on internet for the required transparency (as being proof of not violating Article 14 of our Constitution) .
9. The Hon’ble MERC to appoint new Consumer Representatives as per section 18 of MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004. The existing consumer Representatives have been absent in many cases and orders passed in favour of electric companies without the consumer interest been taken care.
10. The Hon’ble MERC to encourage competition in compliance with the proviso of section 61 (c) of EA 2003 and also comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order (Civil Appeal no. 2898 of 2006, with Civil Appeal No. 3466 and Civil Appeal No. 3467 of 2006) which allows Tata Power Company (TPC) to supply to ALL consumers of Mumbai availing less than 1000 kVA). The Hon’ble MERC to direct TPC to immediately make arrangements to supply electricity to all consumers across Mumbai (including Reliance & BEST consumers).
11. The Hon’ble MERC to direct electric companies to enter into formal agreements for space required for distribution transformers complying with the Section 5.5 of MERC (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005.
12. The Hon’ble MERC to NOT permit any new Category as suggested by the Petitioner for (1) HT Public and Government and (2) Railways as there is no provision in the EA 2003 for any Categories, even prevailing ones.. The Hon’ble MERC to remove the differentiation of tariff by category which will remove the problem of consumer mix as highlighted by the Petitioner.
13. Low Tension Consumers have been defined based on Sanctioned Load and High Tension Consumers have been defined based on Contract Demand as provided under MERC (Standard of Performance of Distribution Licensees, Period of Giving Supply and determination of Compensation ) Regulations 2005, MERC (Electric Supply Code & other Conditions of Supply) Regulations 2005 and MERC (Terms & Conditions of Tariff) Regulations 2005. High Tension Consumers have been defined based on Contract to be charged based on Demand recorded. The Hon’ble MERC to ensure that since LT Consumers have been defined based on Sanctioned Load, they should not be levied Contract Demand charges.
14. The Petitioner be directed to work out the required quantum Demand / Energy at reasonable price to enter into a long term power purchase agreement with the approval of Hon’ble MERC for supplying uninterrupted power supply.
15. The Petitioner Ms. Reliance Energy has implied that their consumers in Mumbai suburbs are thieves and have got approved 12% distribution loss and have also got approval from Hon’ble ATE, to fit Electronic meters, apparently reduce these losses. Now to safe guard the consumer interest, the Hon’ble MERC to direct Petitioner to provide calibration test certificate for all meters fitted by them at consumer premises. The faulty electronic meters installed by the Petitioner should be immediately replaced with 'correct meters' as per CEA Regulation 2006 wherein it is mandatory to install meters of 'correct range and correct accuracy duly calibrated at NABL accredited Test Laboratories' . The Petitioner should discontinue the practice of procuring 'Fast' meters from China and elsewhere.
16. The Hon’ble MERC to direct the Petitioner to maintain separate accounts for Mumbai Distribution business as per EA 2003, to scrutinize the past accounts of the Petitioner and refund the excess amount collected, with interest. The Petitioner has been manipulating the accounts from its existence year 2004 till date. Mr Jude G Tondon and others had highlighted before HON’BLE MERC the manipulation of consumer numbers and consumption in various categories (ref order June 2008). This illegal practice seems to be continuing in the present Petition also. The Petitioners' accounts should be open for inspection by petitioners and consumers to rule out fraud and manipulation by the Petitioner
17. The Hon’ble MERC to direct the Petitioner to provide data in easily understandable form.
18. The Petitioner is NOT a Licensee as per the strict terms and conditions of EA 2003, as stated by the Hon’ble MERC in an RTI response. The Hon’ble MERC to re-evaluate the License status of Reliance Energy Limited (non-existent company) and/or Reliance Infrastructure Limited and clarify to the public.
19. Pass any such further order this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.


I ……… ……………………hereby verify that the contents mentioned above are true to my personal belief and have derived complete knowledge, collected from the records believed to be true.

…………………………… (Signature)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 19th March, 2009

I support this complaint.
3 years back I opt reliance gold health insurance at premium of 7450/- which i renewed regularly without any claim for 3years. last year premium was 9250/- which reliance has increased this year about 5.5 times i.e. 52,720/- (550% hike). IRDA must control such huge hike and force reliance for reasonable hike. We must fight together for such type of cheating with indian citizen's health.

I support this complaint. The renewal, for my family floater healthwise gold policy which I bought for around 9000 for two years in november 2008, is around 19000 for one year. which is around 4.5 times from last years premium. No guarantee it would'n increase next year more, if I renew this year. They may ask for 50000 for next year's renewal.

No IRDA regulations at all???????

I support this complaint.I know many cases where Reliance General has increased renewal premium of healthwise policy upto five times.When they introduced this policy,they should havethought about it.Now I have crossed insurable age.It is criminal and illogical to increase abnormal renewal rates and wrong for IRDA to grant such inrease.I support PIL shoul be filed

I support this complaint.