Skip to main content

Insurance firms can’t deny claims for 3-year-old policies

In a significant pro-consumer move, life insurance companies will now not be able to deny an insurance claim after three years of commencement of policy on any ground. This has become possible after the amendment passed by Parliament last week in the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2015.
According to the amendment, no policy will be called into question on any ground after three years. Life insurance companies will have to prove within three years from the commencement of the policy that the policy-holder had suppressed any health-related information or committed fraud.
“People take insurance to ensure that after their death, people who are dependent on them can still manage with their day-to-day needs. However, sometimes insurance companies unnecessarily reject claims on the basis that the policy-holder had not made full discourse. This had to some extent generated mistrust among people about insurance companies and had hindered their penetration,” government sources said. It is expected to also decrease the time taken by insurance companies to settle claims and bring down insurance-related litigation. However, industry sources said that it will force insurance companies to tighten their rules to issue new policies.

Article referred: http://www.asianage.com/india/insurance-firms-can-t-deny-claims-3-year-old-policies-722

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...