Skip to main content

Let customers know their rights: High Court to insurance regulators

The Bombay high court has directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) to consider issuing appropriate instructions to all insurance companies to inform policyholders about remedies available to them in case of rejection or part-settlement of their claims.

A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice BP Colabawalla directed the regulators also to consider asking risk firms to let policyholders know the reasons for its action on the claims.

The directions were given on Tuesday during the hearing of a public interest litigation filed by activist Gaurang Damani. The PIL seeks directions to bring clarity in medical insurance documentation so that the end consumer knows exactly what amount to expect from the insurance company in case of a claim.

During the hearing, Damani pointed out that a policyholder can approach the Grievance Redressal Cell of the insurance company concerned and thereafter file an appeal before an independent Ombudsman, but the existence of these forums is not known to the general public.

Damani had moved the HC two years ago, complaining about absolute lack of regulatory mechanism to govern the health insurance sector, although at that time about 5.5 crore people across the country had availed medical insurance and several thousand claims were pending settlement. After the high court's intervention, the IRDA has come out with a comprehensive regulatory mechanism governing medical insurance sector in India.

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-let-customers-know-their-rights-bombay-high-court-to-insurance-regulators-2044885

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
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