Skip to main content

United India Insurance Co. refuses to pay mediclaim: Forum slaps fine

The District Consumers’ Grievances Redressal Forum has fined an insurance company for denying the mediclaim provision despite the insured party being fully eligible for it.

The Forum, in its final order passed on Aug. 3, 2013, has directed the company to pay Rs. 4,814.30 as the balance amount of hospital bill, Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the complainant for mental torture and Rs. 2,000 for the expenses incurred on the case proceedings within a period of two months, failing which an interest of 9% will be charged on the total amount of Rs. 11,814.30. The complainant also has the option of lodging a criminal case against the insurance company under Column 27 of the Consumers’ Protection Act.

The complainant, S.S. Padmaraj, 55, a businessman residing in Lakshmipuram in city, had availed a Mediclaim insurance policy 26 years ago from United India Insurance Company Limited, Direct Agents Branch, Mysore covering the lives of the policy holder, his wife and daughter. Under the said insurance cover, the insured person, his wife and daughter were indemnified against the medical charges that they would have incurred as a result of suffering of illness or injury during the policy period.

Padmaraj has been renewing the policy for the past 26 years without any break, the total sum accruing to over Rs. 2.60 lakh, according to his advocate H. Kumar, who argued in favour of Padmaraj in the Consumers’ Forum, who added that this was the first claim made by the insured for a paltry sum of Rs. 4,814.30, which is very well within the inner limit of the policy (less than 25% of the sum assured or the actual amount of expenses, whichever is lesser).

Padmaraj’s wife underwent a surgery at a private hospital during June 2012, for which the expenses incurred were Rs. 48,814.30. The insurance company had appointed Bangalore-based Medsave Healthcare Private Limited as the Third Party Administrators (TPA) for processing and settling of mediclaims on commission basis.

Advocate Kumar said that this TPA, without the knowledge of the insured, got in touch with the hospital authorities and settled the bill for Rs. 44,000 only (cash-less service was availed by the patient) as ‘global payment’, while the balance amount of Rs. 4,814.30 was to be footed by the insured.

When the insured furnished the bill to the insurance company seeking reimbursement of the hospital bill, the insurers are said to have given a callous response saying that the hospital had accepted the global payment paid by the TPA as the full and final settlement of the claim.

Advocate Kumar said that when Padmaraj warned of legal action against the insurance company, the company’s agents are said to have told him that it would be a futile exercise to recover a paltry sum of Rs. 4,814.30 as the litigation would incur an expense of at least Rs. 10,000.

Padmaraj issued a legal notice to the insurance company through his advocate, but there was no response, which prompted Padmaraj to approach the Consumers’ Forum for justice on Nov. 21, 2012. The Forum, after hearing the case for a period of over eight months, found the insurance company guilty and ordered for reimbursing the complainant.

Kumar said that Padmaraj also made another claim with the same insurance company for treatment availed at JSS Ayurvedic Hospital, for a bill of Rs. 34,000. However, his claim was not settled either by the insurance company or the TPA for over four months, said Kumar, adding that Padmaraj then lodged a complaint with the Customer Grievance Cell, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) and the Ombudsman, following which his claim was settled without resorting to any legal measures.

Comment:
The question which begs to be answered is by what logic (if any) do the insurance companies settle or refuse claims, not just in India but worldwide. After observing over the years, I have come to believe that it is done with a lot of deliberate thinking. Imagine, at the beginning of each year, the boards of directors deciding that 'since there was 'X' claims settled last year and we paid 'Y' and our profitability was 'N', this year we will....."
Worldwide, insurance companies have the biggest fund base and are the most consistently profitable organisations industry wise. How does that happen? Guess....

Article referred: http://www.inmysore.com/united-india-insurance-co-refuses-to-pay-mediclaim-forum-slaps-fine

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

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

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even