Skip to main content

United India Insurance Co. refuses to pay mediclaim: Forum slaps fine

The District Consumers’ Grievances Redressal Forum has fined an insurance company for denying the mediclaim provision despite the insured party being fully eligible for it.

The Forum, in its final order passed on Aug. 3, 2013, has directed the company to pay Rs. 4,814.30 as the balance amount of hospital bill, Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the complainant for mental torture and Rs. 2,000 for the expenses incurred on the case proceedings within a period of two months, failing which an interest of 9% will be charged on the total amount of Rs. 11,814.30. The complainant also has the option of lodging a criminal case against the insurance company under Column 27 of the Consumers’ Protection Act.

The complainant, S.S. Padmaraj, 55, a businessman residing in Lakshmipuram in city, had availed a Mediclaim insurance policy 26 years ago from United India Insurance Company Limited, Direct Agents Branch, Mysore covering the lives of the policy holder, his wife and daughter. Under the said insurance cover, the insured person, his wife and daughter were indemnified against the medical charges that they would have incurred as a result of suffering of illness or injury during the policy period.

Padmaraj has been renewing the policy for the past 26 years without any break, the total sum accruing to over Rs. 2.60 lakh, according to his advocate H. Kumar, who argued in favour of Padmaraj in the Consumers’ Forum, who added that this was the first claim made by the insured for a paltry sum of Rs. 4,814.30, which is very well within the inner limit of the policy (less than 25% of the sum assured or the actual amount of expenses, whichever is lesser).

Padmaraj’s wife underwent a surgery at a private hospital during June 2012, for which the expenses incurred were Rs. 48,814.30. The insurance company had appointed Bangalore-based Medsave Healthcare Private Limited as the Third Party Administrators (TPA) for processing and settling of mediclaims on commission basis.

Advocate Kumar said that this TPA, without the knowledge of the insured, got in touch with the hospital authorities and settled the bill for Rs. 44,000 only (cash-less service was availed by the patient) as ‘global payment’, while the balance amount of Rs. 4,814.30 was to be footed by the insured.

When the insured furnished the bill to the insurance company seeking reimbursement of the hospital bill, the insurers are said to have given a callous response saying that the hospital had accepted the global payment paid by the TPA as the full and final settlement of the claim.

Advocate Kumar said that when Padmaraj warned of legal action against the insurance company, the company’s agents are said to have told him that it would be a futile exercise to recover a paltry sum of Rs. 4,814.30 as the litigation would incur an expense of at least Rs. 10,000.

Padmaraj issued a legal notice to the insurance company through his advocate, but there was no response, which prompted Padmaraj to approach the Consumers’ Forum for justice on Nov. 21, 2012. The Forum, after hearing the case for a period of over eight months, found the insurance company guilty and ordered for reimbursing the complainant.

Kumar said that Padmaraj also made another claim with the same insurance company for treatment availed at JSS Ayurvedic Hospital, for a bill of Rs. 34,000. However, his claim was not settled either by the insurance company or the TPA for over four months, said Kumar, adding that Padmaraj then lodged a complaint with the Customer Grievance Cell, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) and the Ombudsman, following which his claim was settled without resorting to any legal measures.

Comment:
The question which begs to be answered is by what logic (if any) do the insurance companies settle or refuse claims, not just in India but worldwide. After observing over the years, I have come to believe that it is done with a lot of deliberate thinking. Imagine, at the beginning of each year, the boards of directors deciding that 'since there was 'X' claims settled last year and we paid 'Y' and our profitability was 'N', this year we will....."
Worldwide, insurance companies have the biggest fund base and are the most consistently profitable organisations industry wise. How does that happen? Guess....

Article referred: http://www.inmysore.com/united-india-insurance-co-refuses-to-pay-mediclaim-forum-slaps-fine

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...

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...

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