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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
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