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

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

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