Skip to main content

Delhi HC directs cashless service to all hospitals

In the High court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 6237/2019, DELHI OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY vs UNION OF INDIA, application was filed by the association of ophthalmologists in Delhi High court who alleged General Insurance Public Sector Association (GIPSA) of acting like a CARTEL and failing to observe transparency in the empanelment process. Till now the GIPSA, group of public sector insurance companies formed in 2011 was only honouring cashless claims with empanelled hospitals.

By the original interim order,  Putting an end to a system where the companies and TPAs insisted that a hospital had to be registered with them, the court in its interim order ruled that insurance companies will give empanelment to all healthcare providers duly registered with respective state authorities for cashless facility. the order, an interim ruling, was passed on May 31. Though the said order was limited to patients seeking eye treatment, the court found fault with the very basis of GIPSA’s guidelines and the external system of “network hospitals” to exclude government-registered hospitals.

The court directed that till the next date of listing/hearing, the benefit to the persons who have taken the insurance policies shall be granted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policies and no other direction, order or system being followed shall be implemented till the next date and further directed that the benefit of providing cashless service be also extended to such medical health providers whose names may not be registered online with GIPSA but if they are registered with the respective State authorities as per the local law of the State as applicable to a particular State, the cashless service be extended even to these medical health providers/beneficiaries.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more