Skip to main content

Insurer pays for hush-hush policy tweak, claim denial - Consumer Forum

An insurance company cannot make changes unilaterally or surreptitiously to the disadvantage of the insured, observed a consumer forum as it directed the New India Assurance Company Ltd to pay the insured amount of Rs 1.59 lakh along with Rs 69,000 compensation to a Chowpatty-based man, Kaushik Pandya, after it wrongly repudiated his wife's mediclaim.

Pandya had told the forum that he had obtained information under the RTI Act about the number of claims received and paid by the insurance company for treatment similar to that undergone by his wife.

"It was revealed that of the total 125 claims reported, the company had paid 28 claims and rejected 97 during the year 2009-10," he said.

Pandya told the forum that his wife, Rupa, suffered from age-related macular degeneration in her left eye from 1989 and was unable to see with that eye.

In 2009 Rupa had to undergo treatment for the illness in her right eye, which remained bandaged for 24 hrs. As she also suffered from hypertension and diabetes, she was admitted to a hospital on doctors' advice.

When Pandya filed for insurance, it was rejected. He filed a complaint in the forum on October 29, 2010.

The insurance company contended that the claim was denied as the treatment fell outside the scope of the health policy. It stated that in the case of the specific disease, there was no need for hospitalization. The company contended that though the treatment injection is given in the operation theatre, in view of the nature of treatment it falls outside the scope of health policies.

The forum observed that rejection of the claim was based on a circular dated February 9, 2009, which excluded the treatment. The forum said that the circular was an internal one and Pandya had rightly submitted that as he was not privy to it and it could not be binding on him.

"We hold that the repudiation made by the opposite party regarding the claim lodged by the complainant about the treatment provided by admitting his wife in the hospital and therefore, not payable is not justifiable," the forum said.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-16/mumbai/40006224_1_consumer-forum-claim-denial-insurance-company

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