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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...