Skip to main content

'Can't deny mediclaim for magnetic treatment of osteoarthritis'

A consumer forum has said Rotational Field Quantum Magnetic Resonance (RFQMR), a non-invasive osteoarthritis treatment, could not be called an alternative or experimental therapy and ordered an insurance firm to pay up for rejecting two claims.
Dismissing New India Assurance Co's argument that the treatment was not recognized by the Indian Medical Council, the forum asked it to pay first complainant Sanyuktaben Shah the insured amount of Rs 1.05 lakh with a compensation of about Rs 46,000, and second complainant Bhisham Lambh Rs 1.30 lakh with a compensation of Rs 40,000.
The forum held that the insurance company had not produced any evidence to show that RFQMR was not recognized by the Indian Medical Council. "Only mentioning the same in the mediclaim policy clause would not be held just and proper for repudiating the claim," it said.
Vile Parle resident Sanyuktaben Shah, in her complaint on 2010, said she came to know about RFQMR about five years ago when osteoarthritis attacked her knee joints. She took the treatment at a Bangalore-based company's Andheri centre in 2008 and was in regular consultation with doctors and physiotherapists as there was still some pain. She also visited a health care centre and was recommended some oral medicines which worked. That year in December, she submitted a claim for Rs 1.05 lakh, which was repudiated.
Juhu's Bhisham Lambh also underwent the treatment after crippling pain in his knees from December 2009. After the 21-day therapy in May 2010, he sent the insurance company a claim of Rs 1.30 lakh. A month later, it was rejected. He moved the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in October 2010.
In both cases, the insurance company said the treatment was experimental and unproven and, therefore, according to the terms and conditions of the mediclaim policy, they were rejected. It stuck to its stand in the forum.
The forum ruled otherwise after taking into consideration the literature produced by the complainants. It showed that RFQMR significantly decreases pain, increases mobility, stability and power of the knee joint, and increases cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis patients. "Furthermore, as per the documents of objectives of Indian Medical Council which is placed on record by the complainant, it appears that the council does not have any object to approve any specific treatment or disapprove any treatment," the forum said.

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more