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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more