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...

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.