Skip to main content

Denying renewal over frequent claims illegal

Ruling against the practice of denying insurance policy renewal to frequent claimants, the high court has held that customers who made claims that were actually excluded from coverage or those who questioned non-payment of claims before a court of law cannot be declined renewal for that reason. Such denial of renewal is "patently illegal", the court said.

Justice Anil K Narendran's order came in response to a petition by N D Prasad of ML Colony at Kunnathumedu in Palakkad questioning New India Assurance Company's decision not to renew his mediclaim policy.

Prasad, a bank employee had obtained a policy after his voluntary retirement in May 2002. It was renewed from time to time until May 2005, when further renewal was declined. In between, he had approached the consumer disputes redressal forum of Palakkad and insurance ombudsman against non-payment of claims.

The insurance company told the HC that in the first year, the petitioner had given an undertaking that he would restrict his claims related

to accidents and not for treatment expenses. However, the petitioner filed a claim for treatment expenses and it was rejected. In the second year, the illness for which the petitioner raised a claim in the first year was included in the list of exclusions, and therefore, another claim for the same illness was turned down that year too. Request for renewal was not entertained due to continuous breach of policy by the insured, the company said.

Ruling against the insurance company, the high court said that the company has no case to substantiate that the petitioner made any bogus claims. The company was not justified in refusing renewal for making claims contrary to the undertaking or the exclusion clause, the court ruled.

"If an insured lodges a claim with the company and the company does not honour the claim, the insured is left with no alternative but to knock at the doors of a court of law.

Merely because the insured had approached the consumer forum for redressal of his grievance, such an act cannot be attributed as a bad record disentitling him to get the policy renewed," the bench held.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/Denying-renewal-over-frequent-claims-illegal/articleshow/42059252.cms

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