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

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...

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.