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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

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...