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

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.