Skip to main content

Premium of senior citizens to be charged on the basis of completed age - Bombay HC

In an order that will benefit hundreds of senior citizens, the Bombay high court has ruled that New India Assurance was wrong in charging premium from existing policy holders as of August 2007 on the basis of running age and not completed age. Hearing a public interest litigation filed by Mumbai resident Dr Babulal Shah, a division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Girish Kulkarni order NIA to refund the excess amount charged from the petitioner and similarly placed senior citizens along with six per cent interest. The judges also directed the insurance company to shell out Rs 10,000 which will be paid as litigation costs to Shah.

''In case of senior citizens who were holding mediclaim policies as of August 2007, NIA could not have charged premium on the basis of running age while renewing the policy,'' said the judges. The HC pointed out that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Irda) had not given its approval to NIA to charge on the basis of running age from existing policy holders.

''Therefore, the petitioner and similarly placed senior citizens who were already holding mediclaim policies of NIA as on August 16, 2007 were entitled to renewal by charging the premium on the basis of the completed age on the date on which the renewed policy was issued. Hence, gross illegality had been committed by the insurance company by charging the premium on the basis of the running age of the insured on the date of issue of policy,'' added the judges. The HC said that other similarly places senior citizens have six months time from the publication of its order on the insurance company's website to apply for a refund. NIA will have to refund the excess amount along with the interest within two months.

Shah claimed that he and his wife had a mediclaim policy with NIA since 1998. During the annual renewal of the policy in 2007, they found that there were errors in the age mentioned in the policy, which resulted in a higher premium. On inquiring, they were informed that the company's new policy with effect from August 16, 2007 was to charge premium on the basis running age and not completed age. 

While the insurance company claimed that they had approval for the change, it was pointed out that in its communications IRDA had specified that existing policy holders would not be compelled to change to the new terms if they are prejudicial. 

The insurance company objected to the PIL saying that it was a private contractual dispute. They also said that the court could not go into the issue of fixing premiums. 

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Insurance-company-told-to-refund-money-to-senior-citizens/articleshow/45499786.cms

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