Skip to main content

Insurer Must Justify Claim Rejection Medically

Can cirrhosis of the liver be attributed only to drinking? Or cancer in a smoker be attributed solely to smoking? There might be several factors which could cause a particular ailment, and it is not possible to pin-point why the ailment occurred. Yet, insurance companies usually attribute a reason for an ailment which would make it convenient for them to reject the claim.
The Maharashtra State Commission has recently held that jumping to such a presumption is incorrect. Suresh Chunilal Jani and his wife Purnima were insured for Rs 2.75 lakh each, under a medi-claim policy issued by National Insurance Company. During the subsistence of the policy, Suresh was admitted to Hinduja hospital for cirrhosis of the liver.
The hospitalization cost for 10 days came to Rs 92,912, while the medical expanses amounted to Rs 27,022, totaling to Rs 1,19,934.He lodged a claim for reimbursements of these expenses, but his claim was rejected on the ground that the treatment was for ‘alcoholic liver disease as congenital external disease’. Not payable under the terms of the policy.
Suresh challenged the repudiation by filing a consumer complaint before the South Mumbai district Forum. The forum held that the repudiation was in order and dismissed the complaint.
Then, Suresh appealed to the Maharashtra State Commission. The Commission observed the insurance company’s stand (repudiation on the ground of alcoholic liver disease) was not covered under clause 4.8 of the policy.
During the hearing, the Commission pointedly questioned the insurance company whether cirrhosis of liver could be caused due to reasons other than consumption of alcohol. But insurance company could not produce any material to justify the ground on which the claim had been repudiated.
The Commission noted that clause 4.8 dealt with convalescence, general debility, run-down condition, rest cure; congenital external disease or defects or anomalies; sterility, infertility, sub-fertility or assisted conception procedures; venereal disease; intentional  self-injury, suicide; all psychiatric and psychosomatic disorders; and diseases and accidents due to misuse or abuse of drugs or alcohol or other intoxicating substances.
The Commission noted that insurance company was not able to produce any material to show liver cirrhosis was due to alcohol alone or it was a congenital external disease. Hence, the provisions of clause 4.8 were held to be inapplicable.
The Commission held that the conclusion of the district forum upholding the repudiation was incorrect. Holding that the repudiation of the claim was unjustified, the Commission set aside the district forum’s order and directed the insurance company to settle the claim.
Accordingly, the insurance company was ordered to pay the entire claim of Rs 1, 19,934 within two months along with 9% interest from March 19, 2008, when it was repudiated, till payment.
This judgment will benefit consumers, as insurance companies will not be permitted to assume a reason for an ailment according to its own convenience, whims and fancies. If a reason is attributed, the onus would lie on the insurance company to medically prove the correctness of its contention.

Article referred: http://www.policymantra.com/blog/page/4/

Comments

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...