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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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