Skip to main content

Mediclaims should be settled by insurance co and not TPAs: HC

The Bombay High Court asked the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority to ensure that insurance companies did not involve Third Party Administrators (TPA) in the claim settlement.

The TPAs act as intermediaries between hospitals, insurers and consumers.

"IRDA shall inform insurers to implement (Health Insurance) Regulation 12 in letter and spirit to see that the decision for rejecting or allowing claims are taken by the companies and not the TPAs," a division bench headed by Chief Justice Mohit Shah said on a PIL.

Gaurang Damani, the petitioner, has highlighted the problems faced by mediclaim policy holders and lack of transparency in claim settlement. He had argued that despite the regulation 12(b), the TPAs settle the claims. He also referred to IRDA's affidavit admitting to lapses by four insurers and five TPAs.

The Association of TPAs admitted that some of its members may still be doing it and added that they were in the process of complying with the regulations.

The court asked IRDA to direct the insurance companies to strictly follow regulation 12(b).

The lawyer of General Insurance Council, which represents 25 non-life insurance companies, admitted that "this is a grey area which has to be looked into as there are cases where the TPAs have outsourced work. We want decision-making to be restricted only to insurance companies. It is a core activity which cannot be outsourced."

Damani also argued that on account of stopping of cashless claims, the overall claim settlement ratio had come down. Data compiled by Insurance Information Bureau (IIB) showed that claims ratio had dropped from nearly 100 per cent to 68 per cent in 2012-13.

The court directed IIB to state the overall ratio of cashless versus non-cashless claims settled in 2013-14 and also average claim amount settled for a particular ailment between cashless and non-cashless for the same period on April 7, the next date of hearing.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/mediclaims-should-be-settled-by-insurance-co-and-not-tpas-hc-115030500894_1.html

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