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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...