Skip to main content

Insurer ordered to pay claim over headache treatment

An insurance company cannot deny a claim by saying headache was pre-existing, said insurance ombudsman. It added that no one could make any claim if that had been the case. The order was issued after considering a complaint lodged by a woman from Thiruvananthapuram, who was denied claim for the money she spent on treatment in a foreign country.

On her visit to the US in March last year, she was admitted to a hospital following headache due to climate change. She spent $315 (Rs 18,000) for two hours of treatment. She told the doctor that she often suffered headaches, which was entered in the medical report.

Before leaving for US, she had availed an overseas travel insurance policy from the New India Insurance Company. When she approached the insurer later, the claim was denied by the company saying the headache was pre-existent citing the medical report. Insurance ombudsman P K Vijayakumar said, "The third party administrator (TPA) who settles the dispute between insurance company and the consumer said headache was a chronic condition and cannot pay the claim. If that was the case, nobody in India could avail insurance". The ombudsman ordered the company to pay the claim.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/Insurer-ordered-to-pay-claim-over-headache-treatment/articleshow/47902542.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more