Skip to main content

Insurance company to pay Rs 92 lakh to woman who lost hubby to cancer

The state consumer commission has directed an insurance company to pay Rs 82 lakh, along with a compensation of around Rs 10 lakh, to the widow of a man who died of mouth cancer in 2010.

It held Life Insurance Corporation of India had wrongly repudiated the claim saying the man had a habit of chewing gutka and suffered from dyspepsia, a problem related to indigestion.

Relying on a national commission order in a similar matter, the panel observed non-disclosure of chronic dyspepsia in the proposal form cannot be a ground for repudiation.

"It is not a disease in itself but symptomatic of other diseases or disorders, characterized by vague abdominal discomfort, a sense of fullness after eating, eructation, heartburn, nausea and vomiting and loss of appetite," the commission said.

The commission observed the medical summary clearly said Rajendra Chavan chewed gutka 14 years prior to his death and not for 14 years as the insurance company claimed.

It noted the summary showed Chavan had been suffering from cancer for only about a month before his death.

"There is no valid document to rely on the contention of the insurance company to establish that the oral cancer was detected prior to the submission of the proposal form," the commission said.

It pointed out when the company's medical officers had certified Chavan's health before issuing the policies, the cancer was nonexistent.

The complainant Kalpana Chavan's husband had procured three separate policies for Rs 30 lakh, Rs 27 lakh and Rs 25 lakh.

On September 6, 2010, Chavan died at a hospital in Pune after suffering from mouth cancer.

Kalpana intimated the insurance company and submitted the three claims. The company obtained Chavan's medical summary from the hospital and concluded that he had suppressed the fact that he chewed gutka and suffered from dyspepsia.

It repudiated the claims in April 2011. Kalpana filed three separate complaints before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission last year. The commission passed a common order in the three complaints.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-29/mumbai/45674555_1_rs-10-lakh-mouth-cancer-gutka

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