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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

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...