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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more