Skip to main content

Insurer pays for hush-hush policy tweak, claim denial - Consumer Forum

An insurance company cannot make changes unilaterally or surreptitiously to the disadvantage of the insured, observed a consumer forum as it directed the New India Assurance Company Ltd to pay the insured amount of Rs 1.59 lakh along with Rs 69,000 compensation to a Chowpatty-based man, Kaushik Pandya, after it wrongly repudiated his wife's mediclaim.

Pandya had told the forum that he had obtained information under the RTI Act about the number of claims received and paid by the insurance company for treatment similar to that undergone by his wife.

"It was revealed that of the total 125 claims reported, the company had paid 28 claims and rejected 97 during the year 2009-10," he said.

Pandya told the forum that his wife, Rupa, suffered from age-related macular degeneration in her left eye from 1989 and was unable to see with that eye.

In 2009 Rupa had to undergo treatment for the illness in her right eye, which remained bandaged for 24 hrs. As she also suffered from hypertension and diabetes, she was admitted to a hospital on doctors' advice.

When Pandya filed for insurance, it was rejected. He filed a complaint in the forum on October 29, 2010.

The insurance company contended that the claim was denied as the treatment fell outside the scope of the health policy. It stated that in the case of the specific disease, there was no need for hospitalization. The company contended that though the treatment injection is given in the operation theatre, in view of the nature of treatment it falls outside the scope of health policies.

The forum observed that rejection of the claim was based on a circular dated February 9, 2009, which excluded the treatment. The forum said that the circular was an internal one and Pandya had rightly submitted that as he was not privy to it and it could not be binding on him.

"We hold that the repudiation made by the opposite party regarding the claim lodged by the complainant about the treatment provided by admitting his wife in the hospital and therefore, not payable is not justifiable," the forum said.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-16/mumbai/40006224_1_consumer-forum-claim-denial-insurance-company

Comments

Most viewed this month

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.