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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more