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

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...

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.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.