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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more