Skip to main content

Insurer Must Justify Claim Rejection Medically

Can cirrhosis of the liver be attributed only to drinking? Or cancer in a smoker be attributed solely to smoking? There might be several factors which could cause a particular ailment, and it is not possible to pin-point why the ailment occurred. Yet, insurance companies usually attribute a reason for an ailment which would make it convenient for them to reject the claim.
The Maharashtra State Commission has recently held that jumping to such a presumption is incorrect. Suresh Chunilal Jani and his wife Purnima were insured for Rs 2.75 lakh each, under a medi-claim policy issued by National Insurance Company. During the subsistence of the policy, Suresh was admitted to Hinduja hospital for cirrhosis of the liver.
The hospitalization cost for 10 days came to Rs 92,912, while the medical expanses amounted to Rs 27,022, totaling to Rs 1,19,934.He lodged a claim for reimbursements of these expenses, but his claim was rejected on the ground that the treatment was for ‘alcoholic liver disease as congenital external disease’. Not payable under the terms of the policy.
Suresh challenged the repudiation by filing a consumer complaint before the South Mumbai district Forum. The forum held that the repudiation was in order and dismissed the complaint.
Then, Suresh appealed to the Maharashtra State Commission. The Commission observed the insurance company’s stand (repudiation on the ground of alcoholic liver disease) was not covered under clause 4.8 of the policy.
During the hearing, the Commission pointedly questioned the insurance company whether cirrhosis of liver could be caused due to reasons other than consumption of alcohol. But insurance company could not produce any material to justify the ground on which the claim had been repudiated.
The Commission noted that clause 4.8 dealt with convalescence, general debility, run-down condition, rest cure; congenital external disease or defects or anomalies; sterility, infertility, sub-fertility or assisted conception procedures; venereal disease; intentional  self-injury, suicide; all psychiatric and psychosomatic disorders; and diseases and accidents due to misuse or abuse of drugs or alcohol or other intoxicating substances.
The Commission noted that insurance company was not able to produce any material to show liver cirrhosis was due to alcohol alone or it was a congenital external disease. Hence, the provisions of clause 4.8 were held to be inapplicable.
The Commission held that the conclusion of the district forum upholding the repudiation was incorrect. Holding that the repudiation of the claim was unjustified, the Commission set aside the district forum’s order and directed the insurance company to settle the claim.
Accordingly, the insurance company was ordered to pay the entire claim of Rs 1, 19,934 within two months along with 9% interest from March 19, 2008, when it was repudiated, till payment.
This judgment will benefit consumers, as insurance companies will not be permitted to assume a reason for an ailment according to its own convenience, whims and fancies. If a reason is attributed, the onus would lie on the insurance company to medically prove the correctness of its contention.

Article referred: http://www.policymantra.com/blog/page/4/

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

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