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

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...