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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...