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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

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...