Skip to main content

Can't deny insurance over unlisted disease: High Court

Non-listing of a disease in the ‘recommended diseases’ list cannot be a ground for rejection of insurance claim, the Madras High Court has ruled.

“Once a person is validly covered by a health insurance scheme and he has taken treatment at an accredited hospital, he cannot be denied reimbursement of the cost of treatment on the ground that the ailment has not been included in the ‘recommended diseases’ list for reimbursement,’’ Justice T Raja observed while allowing a writ plea from G Simon Christudoss.

Accepting the arguments of advocate D Prasanna that a school employee had been unfairly denied reimbursement of costs involved in his eye surgery conducted at a city hospital, the judge said it was not open to the DEO, the competent authority, to say that the employee was not entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses as the disease he suffered from was not shown as one of the diseases on the list. The approach of the officer was unreasonable, the judge said. Christudoss, an assistant in Little Flower HSS  at Annamangalam in Perambalur district, had been subscribing to the government employees health fund scheme (TNGEHFS) since 1998 by paying a monthly premium. He took treatment for his eye problem in Vijaya Hospital, an accredited institution, in 2008.

Prasanna submitted that on the hospital’s advice and warning that unless he underwent an operation immediately he could end up losing vision completely, Christudass underwent the operation by spending Rs 1.17 lakh. In January 2008, when he submitted the bills for reimbursement, the DEO rejected them, saying that eye pressure had not been included in the list of specialized treatments.

Faulting the rejection order, Justice Raja said Christudoss had been subscribing every month to the government’s health scheme and the hospital too figured on the list of accredited hospitals for specialised/advanced surgeries. While so, the educational authorities ought not to have rejected the reimbursement claim, the Justice said, and directed payment of the entire claim amount with 8% annual interest to Christudass.

Article referred: http://newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/Cant-deny-insurance-over-unlisted-disease-High-Court/2013/09/22/article1797106.ece

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