Skip to main content

Mediclaims should be settled by insurance co and not TPAs: HC

The Bombay High Court asked the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority to ensure that insurance companies did not involve Third Party Administrators (TPA) in the claim settlement.

The TPAs act as intermediaries between hospitals, insurers and consumers.

"IRDA shall inform insurers to implement (Health Insurance) Regulation 12 in letter and spirit to see that the decision for rejecting or allowing claims are taken by the companies and not the TPAs," a division bench headed by Chief Justice Mohit Shah said on a PIL.

Gaurang Damani, the petitioner, has highlighted the problems faced by mediclaim policy holders and lack of transparency in claim settlement. He had argued that despite the regulation 12(b), the TPAs settle the claims. He also referred to IRDA's affidavit admitting to lapses by four insurers and five TPAs.

The Association of TPAs admitted that some of its members may still be doing it and added that they were in the process of complying with the regulations.

The court asked IRDA to direct the insurance companies to strictly follow regulation 12(b).

The lawyer of General Insurance Council, which represents 25 non-life insurance companies, admitted that "this is a grey area which has to be looked into as there are cases where the TPAs have outsourced work. We want decision-making to be restricted only to insurance companies. It is a core activity which cannot be outsourced."

Damani also argued that on account of stopping of cashless claims, the overall claim settlement ratio had come down. Data compiled by Insurance Information Bureau (IIB) showed that claims ratio had dropped from nearly 100 per cent to 68 per cent in 2012-13.

The court directed IIB to state the overall ratio of cashless versus non-cashless claims settled in 2013-14 and also average claim amount settled for a particular ailment between cashless and non-cashless for the same period on April 7, the next date of hearing.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/mediclaims-should-be-settled-by-insurance-co-and-not-tpas-hc-115030500894_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more