‘Greed plus has become the rule of political existence’

‘Greed plus has become the rule of political existence’

Mangalore Today News Network

Mangaluru, Nov 17, 2014: Mangalore city-based Consumer Forum has asked an insurance company to reimburse treatment charges to the wife and the son of a man who died in a hospital. The insurance company had rejected tthe claim.

Passing judicial orders in favour of a Mannagudda resident, wife of the late Vijaya Kumar B., and their son Ravi Kumar recently, the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum asked the manager of Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ballalbagh, to pay Rs.1,53,991 to them along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of rejection letter till the date of payment, besides Rs. 2,000 as litigation cost.

The aggrieved wife  said her husband was holding the company’s Family Health Suraksha Policy covering himself and his son with the sum assured being Rs. 2 lakh. Vijaya Kumar was admitted to a hospital for pain in a finger on his right hand in July 2011 and died a week later.   The insurance company, however, sanctioned only Rs. 15,000 during the period of hospitalisation, but cancelled that too, forcing the complainants to bear the cost.

The complainant issued a legal notice but there was no response.  They urged the Forum to direct the insurance company to disburse a sum of Rs. 2 lakh and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards incidental expenses in addition to compensation and cost of the proceedings.

The company claimed the complainant was barred by time and res-judication  because a complaint filed earlier had been dismissed.  The Forum pointed out that after dismissal of the first complaint, the complainants had filed a new complaint on the same cause of action and same amount.

Regarding the company’s stance that the illness was not covered in the first year of the policy, the Forum found “that the claim of the complainants duly covered under the policy”.   The company had not given any evidence to show that the illness of the insurer was in the exclusion clause.

The denial of the insurance claim amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practices and on the basis the consumer forum gave an order.  Many  service providers are refusing to own their responsibilities under false pretexts and public should seek justice appropriately.