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

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