Skip to main content

Insurance companies can’t make unilateral changes in mediclaim policies: Forum

In two separate cases, a consumer forum has held that unilateral changes made in a mediclaim policy by the insurance company amounted to deficiency in service. In both cases the forum relied on a Supreme Court judgment which observed that renewal of an insurance policy means repetition of the original policy.

"In common parlance, by renewal, the old policy is revived and it is sort of a substitution of obligations under the old policy unless such policy provides otherwise. It may be that on renewal, a new contract comes into being, but the said contract is on the same terms as of the original policy," the SC had said.

The forum directed The New India Assurance Company Ltd to reimburse Rs 87,186 and pay compensation of Rs 27,000, to Dadar resident Soli Modi. The firm had sanctioned Rs 62,814, instead of the assured sum of Rs 1.5 lakh that Modi had incurred in a hernia surgery in 2012.

In the complaint filed before the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Soli said on perusing the reasons for sanctioning only a part amount of the claim, it was noticed that the deductions were made on account of changes in the policy terms that were made without his knowledge.

In the second instance, a Dahisar woman who had undergone a hysterectomy in 2011, was sanctioned Rs 22,500 instead of the Rs 1.2 lakh incurred as charges for the surgery and tests. On probing the reason for the part rejection, she learnt that her policy was changed from an Individual policy to a Janta policy without her consent.

"The insurance firm and third-party administrator have acted arbitrarily and tried to modify the terms...of the earlier policies issued to her husband. The firm had indulged in unfair trade practices by issuing Janta Policy and under the garb of that policy curtailed the rights of the complainant which were available to her...under the old policies," the forum said. The woman will get Rs 20,000 compensation and Rs 42,624 reimbursement.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Mumbai/Insurance-companies-cant-make-unilateral-changes-in-mediclaim-policies-Forum/articleshow/41545817.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more