Skip to main content

Insurance company to pay Rs 92 lakh to woman who lost hubby to cancer

The state consumer commission has directed an insurance company to pay Rs 82 lakh, along with a compensation of around Rs 10 lakh, to the widow of a man who died of mouth cancer in 2010.

It held Life Insurance Corporation of India had wrongly repudiated the claim saying the man had a habit of chewing gutka and suffered from dyspepsia, a problem related to indigestion.

Relying on a national commission order in a similar matter, the panel observed non-disclosure of chronic dyspepsia in the proposal form cannot be a ground for repudiation.

"It is not a disease in itself but symptomatic of other diseases or disorders, characterized by vague abdominal discomfort, a sense of fullness after eating, eructation, heartburn, nausea and vomiting and loss of appetite," the commission said.

The commission observed the medical summary clearly said Rajendra Chavan chewed gutka 14 years prior to his death and not for 14 years as the insurance company claimed.

It noted the summary showed Chavan had been suffering from cancer for only about a month before his death.

"There is no valid document to rely on the contention of the insurance company to establish that the oral cancer was detected prior to the submission of the proposal form," the commission said.

It pointed out when the company's medical officers had certified Chavan's health before issuing the policies, the cancer was nonexistent.

The complainant Kalpana Chavan's husband had procured three separate policies for Rs 30 lakh, Rs 27 lakh and Rs 25 lakh.

On September 6, 2010, Chavan died at a hospital in Pune after suffering from mouth cancer.

Kalpana intimated the insurance company and submitted the three claims. The company obtained Chavan's medical summary from the hospital and concluded that he had suppressed the fact that he chewed gutka and suffered from dyspepsia.

It repudiated the claims in April 2011. Kalpana filed three separate complaints before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission last year. The commission passed a common order in the three complaints.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-29/mumbai/45674555_1_rs-10-lakh-mouth-cancer-gutka

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...

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...