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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
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