Skip to main content

Consumer forum dismisses plea seeking mediclaim for cancer


A consumer forum here has dismissed a plea seeking mediclaim of Rs three lakh for a man, who died of mouth cancer, noting that the disease was reported within a month of taking the policy and according to the terms there was no deficiency on the part of the insurance company.

The New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, rejected the plea filed by the kin of Delhi resident Narender Chhabra, against IFFCO Tokio and Paramount Health Services Pvt Ltd.

In its order, the forum noted that the complainants failed to rebut the conditions of policy that the disease, which incepted within 30 days of the policy, was excluded.

"In this case, even if we pay no attention to hypertension and diabetes for 12 years or to chewing of tobacco for 15 years, the deceased reported cancerous growth in mouth within one month of taking the policy," it said, while dismissing the complaint.

The complainants had told that Chhabra, who had a Med- shield Policy of the insurance company, was admitted in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital in December 2008 where he died of mouth cancer in March 2009.

Later, they filed a claim of Rs three lakh with the insurance company for the treatment incurred in the hospital.

The insurance company had contended before the forum that the claim was repudiated on the ground that a disease which incepts within 30 days of the commencement of insurance cover, was excluded in terms and conditions of the policy and added that Chhabra had history of diabetes and hypertension for 12 years and was chewing tobacco for 15 years.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/consumer-forum-dismisses-plea-seeking-mediclaim-for-cancer-114082800677_1.html

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...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...