Skip to main content

Insurer faulted for failure to detect disease

The state consumer commission has directed LIC to pay around Rs 44,000 in compensation plus the insured amount to a widow whose claim it rejected on the grounds that her husband had suppressed the fact that he was suffering from HIV while applying for the insurance. The commission said the medical check-up done when the man applied for insurance should have detected he had HIV as well as tuberculosis.

LIC has to pay the woman a total of Rs 1.34 lakh.

Reprimanding the insurance company, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said that it was extremely difficult to believe that the mandatory medical examination and the doctor's examination of the insured person failed to assess and detect a prolonged ailment and symptoms of tuberculosis and HIV. The commission said that the insured person also may not have been aware of the infections and changes taking place in his body. "He, therefore, cannot be attributed to have suppressed material information consciously and intentionally while filling the proposal form of the insurance company."

The husband of the complainant had taken Jivan Mitra (Triple Cover Endowment) from the insurance company and it was effective from March 10, 2004. On July 25, 2005, the man died of acute chronic renal failure. His widow then filed the claim. On May 20, 2006 the insurance company rejected the claim while alleging that while filling the proposal form the deceased had hidden the fact that he was suffering from HIV and TB. The company said the diseases were recorded in the history submitted by the deceased when he was getting admitted to hospital.

Aggrieved, the woman filed a complaint in a district forum. On July 18, 2007, the forum dismissed the complaint, following which she filed an appeal in the state commission. The woman submitted that the deceased was unaware of the ailments cited and died of a totally different reason. She said there was no correlation between the illness history and cause of death.

The insurance company alleged that the discharge papers of the Pune hospital showed that the deceased was suffering from HIV and TB for two years prior to giving the history.

The commission observed that the discharge card was not tendered in evidence. "There is no evidence as to who had received the said history and as to who had given it. Under the circumstances, its authenticity as well as correctness can be doubted. Hence, the very basis of the insurance company's repudiation gets blown off," the commission said.

Refuting the insurance company's defence, the commission said, "We find that the insurance company failed to show that the deceased suppressed material information while filling a proposal form. Thus, the repudiation of insurance claim being arbitrary, the deficiency in service on part of the insurance company is well established."

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Insurer-faulted-for-failure-to-detect-disease/articleshow/19589364.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...