Skip to main content

Cannot reject claim under the plea of related diseases -Madras HC

In a significant ruling the Madras High Court bench has said insurance companies cannot reject medical claims reasoning that the disease for which reimbursement had been sought was caused by the claimant's health problems that existed before they took insurance cover.

Allowing an appeal filed by one Manivasagam, Justices R Sudhakar and V M Velumani said there could be several reasons for a pre-existing disease or ailment. The doctors alone could identify them and provide the treatment, they said and ruled that the terms of the mediclaim policy did not permit interpretation of a particular disease.

"The insurance companies are strictly bound by the disease or ailment specified in the policy as pre-existing disease. No addition or deletion by way of interpretation can be done. The authority cannot read something more into the terms and conditions of the policy and come to the inference that one disease is relatable to other disease and, therefore mediclaim is rejected," the Judges said.

Manivasagam said only hypertension and diabetes were mentioned as pre-existing diseases in his medical claim policy. The policy was renewed periodically, until he spent Rs 1.41 lakh in August 2007 for a coronary angiogram test followed by a bypass surgery.

The insurance company rejected his claim. The single judge also dismissed his petition, asking him to approach the Consumer Disputes Forum in view of disputed questions of fact involved in the case.

The petitioner contended that there was no disputed question of fact in the case.

The Judges concurred and said the dispute arose only due to misconception and misinterpretation of rules by the insurance company and directed it to honour the claim.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...