Skip to main content

Can't deny insurance over unlisted disease: High Court

Non-listing of a disease in the ‘recommended diseases’ list cannot be a ground for rejection of insurance claim, the Madras High Court has ruled.

“Once a person is validly covered by a health insurance scheme and he has taken treatment at an accredited hospital, he cannot be denied reimbursement of the cost of treatment on the ground that the ailment has not been included in the ‘recommended diseases’ list for reimbursement,’’ Justice T Raja observed while allowing a writ plea from G Simon Christudoss.

Accepting the arguments of advocate D Prasanna that a school employee had been unfairly denied reimbursement of costs involved in his eye surgery conducted at a city hospital, the judge said it was not open to the DEO, the competent authority, to say that the employee was not entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses as the disease he suffered from was not shown as one of the diseases on the list. The approach of the officer was unreasonable, the judge said. Christudoss, an assistant in Little Flower HSS  at Annamangalam in Perambalur district, had been subscribing to the government employees health fund scheme (TNGEHFS) since 1998 by paying a monthly premium. He took treatment for his eye problem in Vijaya Hospital, an accredited institution, in 2008.

Prasanna submitted that on the hospital’s advice and warning that unless he underwent an operation immediately he could end up losing vision completely, Christudass underwent the operation by spending Rs 1.17 lakh. In January 2008, when he submitted the bills for reimbursement, the DEO rejected them, saying that eye pressure had not been included in the list of specialized treatments.

Faulting the rejection order, Justice Raja said Christudoss had been subscribing every month to the government’s health scheme and the hospital too figured on the list of accredited hospitals for specialised/advanced surgeries. While so, the educational authorities ought not to have rejected the reimbursement claim, the Justice said, and directed payment of the entire claim amount with 8% annual interest to Christudass.

Article referred: http://newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/Cant-deny-insurance-over-unlisted-disease-High-Court/2013/09/22/article1797106.ece

Comments

Most viewed this month

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.

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...