Skip to main content

All insurers needs to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle claims with utmost care and caution

In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Hukam Bai Meena, the insurer repudiated on the ground that the claim was delayed as the same ought to have been submitted within one month from the date of the death of the depositor.

The National Commission (NCDRC) referred to Circular No. IRDA/HLTH/MISC./CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20.9.2011, issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) wherein it has been stated that the Authority has been receiving several complaint that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents. The IRDA then directed through the circular that the insurers' decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds.  It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute.  One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims.  Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policy holders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation.
Therefore, it is advised that all insurers needs to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle such claims with utmost care and caution.  It is also advised that the insurers must not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained, recorded and the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time.

The NCDRC then held that a genuine claim is not to be rejected by the insurer only on account of delay in its submission.  The insurer is required to enquire from the claimant as to what was the reason or the delay in submission of the claim.  The claim should be rejected only where the insurer finds that it was liable to be rejected even if it had been submitted in time.  In the present case, admittedly, no attempt was made by the insurer to ascertain the reasons for the delay in submission of the claim from the complainant.  Therefore, she did not get an opportunity to explain the said delay.  This is not the case of the petitioner that the husband of the complainant had not died in an accident or that he was not a depositor with Sahara India Commercial Corporation.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim would have been rejected even if it had been submitted in time. 

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