Skip to main content

Doctor's prescriptions have to be substantiated by an Affidavit of the said doctor

In  PNB METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs VINITA DEVI, the claim of the respondent on death of her husband-the insured was repudiated by the insurer on th ground of suppression of material facts.

The respondent claimed heart failure as cause of death while the insurer claimed that the insured had suppressed the fact that he suffered from severe kidney problems. However, the records provided by the insurer were found not be dependable.

The District as well as the State Forum has found the insurer to have been deficient in their service. The NCDRC referring to the judgment of the Commission titled Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I which has attained finality, held that it has been observed in the said judgment  that the doctor’s prescriptions have to be substantiated by an Affidavit of the said doctor,  specially in the light of the fact that it is being disputed by the Complainant. In the instant case the Insurance Company has not produced the affidavit of the concerned doctor nor did the said doctor answer any interrogatory by way of evidence before the Fora below.  At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the burden to prove that the life assured was suffering from any pre-existing disease lies with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company had not filed any documentary evidence or Affidavit of the treating doctor in support of their contention.  Hence we find force in the contention of the Counsel of the Complainant that the insured was never treated by the said doctor Y.K. Thakur of Hazipur as the reports are not substantiated by any affidavit of evidence.  In the light of this observation, we are of the considered view that the aspect of nexus between  the kidney disease and heart attack is of no relevance in the instant case.

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