Skip to main content

Insurer faulted for failure to detect disease

The state consumer commission has directed LIC to pay around Rs 44,000 in compensation plus the insured amount to a widow whose claim it rejected on the grounds that her husband had suppressed the fact that he was suffering from HIV while applying for the insurance. The commission said the medical check-up done when the man applied for insurance should have detected he had HIV as well as tuberculosis.

LIC has to pay the woman a total of Rs 1.34 lakh.

Reprimanding the insurance company, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said that it was extremely difficult to believe that the mandatory medical examination and the doctor's examination of the insured person failed to assess and detect a prolonged ailment and symptoms of tuberculosis and HIV. The commission said that the insured person also may not have been aware of the infections and changes taking place in his body. "He, therefore, cannot be attributed to have suppressed material information consciously and intentionally while filling the proposal form of the insurance company."

The husband of the complainant had taken Jivan Mitra (Triple Cover Endowment) from the insurance company and it was effective from March 10, 2004. On July 25, 2005, the man died of acute chronic renal failure. His widow then filed the claim. On May 20, 2006 the insurance company rejected the claim while alleging that while filling the proposal form the deceased had hidden the fact that he was suffering from HIV and TB. The company said the diseases were recorded in the history submitted by the deceased when he was getting admitted to hospital.

Aggrieved, the woman filed a complaint in a district forum. On July 18, 2007, the forum dismissed the complaint, following which she filed an appeal in the state commission. The woman submitted that the deceased was unaware of the ailments cited and died of a totally different reason. She said there was no correlation between the illness history and cause of death.

The insurance company alleged that the discharge papers of the Pune hospital showed that the deceased was suffering from HIV and TB for two years prior to giving the history.

The commission observed that the discharge card was not tendered in evidence. "There is no evidence as to who had received the said history and as to who had given it. Under the circumstances, its authenticity as well as correctness can be doubted. Hence, the very basis of the insurance company's repudiation gets blown off," the commission said.

Refuting the insurance company's defence, the commission said, "We find that the insurance company failed to show that the deceased suppressed material information while filling a proposal form. Thus, the repudiation of insurance claim being arbitrary, the deficiency in service on part of the insurance company is well established."

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Insurer-faulted-for-failure-to-detect-disease/articleshow/19589364.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil