Skip to main content

'Can't deny mediclaim for magnetic treatment of osteoarthritis'

A consumer forum has said Rotational Field Quantum Magnetic Resonance (RFQMR), a non-invasive osteoarthritis treatment, could not be called an alternative or experimental therapy and ordered an insurance firm to pay up for rejecting two claims.
Dismissing New India Assurance Co's argument that the treatment was not recognized by the Indian Medical Council, the forum asked it to pay first complainant Sanyuktaben Shah the insured amount of Rs 1.05 lakh with a compensation of about Rs 46,000, and second complainant Bhisham Lambh Rs 1.30 lakh with a compensation of Rs 40,000.
The forum held that the insurance company had not produced any evidence to show that RFQMR was not recognized by the Indian Medical Council. "Only mentioning the same in the mediclaim policy clause would not be held just and proper for repudiating the claim," it said.
Vile Parle resident Sanyuktaben Shah, in her complaint on 2010, said she came to know about RFQMR about five years ago when osteoarthritis attacked her knee joints. She took the treatment at a Bangalore-based company's Andheri centre in 2008 and was in regular consultation with doctors and physiotherapists as there was still some pain. She also visited a health care centre and was recommended some oral medicines which worked. That year in December, she submitted a claim for Rs 1.05 lakh, which was repudiated.
Juhu's Bhisham Lambh also underwent the treatment after crippling pain in his knees from December 2009. After the 21-day therapy in May 2010, he sent the insurance company a claim of Rs 1.30 lakh. A month later, it was rejected. He moved the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in October 2010.
In both cases, the insurance company said the treatment was experimental and unproven and, therefore, according to the terms and conditions of the mediclaim policy, they were rejected. It stuck to its stand in the forum.
The forum ruled otherwise after taking into consideration the literature produced by the complainants. It showed that RFQMR significantly decreases pain, increases mobility, stability and power of the knee joint, and increases cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis patients. "Furthermore, as per the documents of objectives of Indian Medical Council which is placed on record by the complainant, it appears that the council does not have any object to approve any specific treatment or disapprove any treatment," the forum said.

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
3 comments
Read more