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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more