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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more