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...

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...