D.O.F:08/02/2021
D.O.O:20/06/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.38/2021
Dated this, the 20th day of June 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Musthaq. S.N (Aged 45 years),
R/at Door No.204, Sheikh Manzil,
Pallam Road, Kasaragod,
Kasaragod Taluk and District .671541. : Complainant
(Adv: ShivashankarBhat).
And
1. Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd,
Building – A, G-O Square, Sr. No.249+250,
Near MankarChowk, Pune, - 411057.
(Adv: M. MadhavanMalankad)
2. UCO Bank, : Opposite Party
Branch Office, 1st floor, Kalpaka Arcade,
Nulllipady, Kasaragod- 671121.
(Adv: Sathyashankara.M)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complainants case is that he obtained Corona Rakshak Insurance Policy covering for the period from 22/07/2020 to 02/05/2021, issued by Opposite Party No:1 through Opposite Party No:2 with a coverage of 100% sum insured on positive diagnosis of covid requiring hospitalization for more than 72 hours. He suffered throat pain fever, cough. He was admitted in First Government Medical College Hospital Kannur from 14/08/2020 till 03/09/2020. The complainant submitted claim before Opposite Party No: 1. But Opposite Party No: 1rejected the claim. The act of Opposite Party No: 1 is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which complainant claim compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and full insured covered amount and cost of litigation.
The Opposite Party No:1 filed written version denying the allegations in the complaint. The case of Opposite Party No:1 is that it is a risk commencement policy valid from 06/08/2020 till 02/05/2021. Client information form such as other forms were required. The Opposite Party came to know that complainant has been suffering Coronary Artery Decease and under medication. The complainant suffering from DVTC (Deep Vain Thrombosis) and Diabetes Mellitus Type II.The illness is not disclosed while obtaining policy therefore claim is repudiated. Since policy is obtained misrepresentations and suppressing material information relating to medical history confirming Coronary Artery Decease certified by documents. The Opposite Party admitted insurance policy. But policy has got waiting period from 22/07/2020to 05/08/2020 and effective date 06/08/2020 till 02/05/2021. There is no promise of 100% payment is each and every case unless eligibilities are fulfilled and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The Opposite Party No:2 filed written version denying any insurance liability to complainant. Further contended that there is no privity of contract between Opposite Party No:2 and complainant. The complainant obtained insurance policy from Opposite Party No:1 is liable to pay. The Opposite Party No: 2 is bank the entire responsibility of fulfilling the conditions of the insurance policy lies upon Opposite Party No:1 and prayed to dismiss the complaint against Opposite Party No: 2.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined for Opposite Parties Ext A1 to A4 documents marked from their side. Ext A1 is the policy, Ext A2 is the covid test report, Ext A3 discharge card and Ext A4 is claim repudiation letter.
The Opposite Party No: 1filed Ext B1 to B7 documents. Ext B1 is the policy, Ext B2 is the policy guidelines, Ext B3 is the health insurance claim form,Ext B4 is the discharge summary, Ext B5 is the admission record, Ext B6is the claim repudiation letter, Ext B7 is the customer information sheet,
Following points arise for consideration in the above case:
- Whether complainant is entitled for insurance benefits claimed in the case whether repudiation of liability is justifiable as per terms and conditions of the policy?
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? And if so for what reliefs.
All the points are considered together for convenience.
The grievance of the complainant is that Opposite Party repudiated the claim of insurance benefits without valid reason. The Opposite Party No:1 justified the rejection of the claim based on Ext B6 document. People prefers health insurance policy to meet the unexpected needs. During the time of covid – 19 pandamic in the country so many insurance companies offered Corona Risk Policies. People attracted to the policy mainly because of any one can affect the decease at any time.
In this case complainant obtained Ext A1 policy from Opposite Party having policy No: CRP-44-20-7523809-00-000 of Corona Rakshak Policy covers for the period from 22/07/2020 to 02/05/2021 of 285 days. The Opposite Party No:2 is the authorized inter mediatory Opposite Party No:1. The above said policy covers Lumpsum benefit of 100% of the insured shall be payable on positive diagnosis of covid -19 requiring hospitalization for a minimum continuous period of 72 hours.
The Opposite Party No:1 admitted the insurance policy the policy obtained on 22/07/2020 and valid till 02/05/2021, the risk commencement of the policy valid from 06/08/2020 till 02/05/2021. The complainant hospitalized on diagnosing as covid positive on 14/08/2020 and was inpatient up to 03/09/2020, that is within risk covering period. The Opposite Party No:1 rejected the claim on the ground that complainant suppressed the pre-decease non disclosure of material facts of medical history and disclose health status complainant misrepresented the health condition regarding pre-existing disease before getting insurance policy . In document doctor says complainant have corona infection and chest decease.
It is the duty of Opposite Party to make detailed test prior to issuing of policy. To get subscriber for the policy companies puts offers and getting subscribers. If a party approaches for insurance benefits they denies on baseless grounds. It amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The complainant has lead evidence in the case and the opposite parties has cross examined the complainant but failed to bring out from the complainant that if he had any pre-deceases of any kind as narrated in the repudiation letter issued by the Opposite Party No: 1 Opposite Party has not given any evidence in the case to prove their contentions.
So there is will full negligence on the part of Opposite Party No: 1 rejecting the claim amount. In a claim against the insurance company for compensation it was for the insurance company disprove such claim with evidence if any, vide Shobika Attire Vs New India Assurance Co Ltd (2006) 8 SCC35.
In the light of above discussion the Opposite Party No:1 Insurance Company is liable to make the payment of the insured claim under the policies for the complainant amounting Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest assured thereon. And also compensation for deficiency in service we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is reasonable in the head and Rs. 5000/- allowed as cost of litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part directing Opposite party No:1 to pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty thousand only) as insurance policy amount being with 6% interest from the date of complaint till realization and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for deficiency in service and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order. The opposite Party No:2 exonerated from liability.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Policy
A2- Covid Test Report
A3- Discharge card
A4- Repudiation letter
B1- Policy
B2- Policy guidelines
B3- Health insurance claim form,
B4- Discharge summary
B5- Admission records
B6- The claim repudiation letter
B7- The customer information sheet
Witness Examined
Pw1- Musthaq.S.N
Dw1- Sudheesh. C
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
