JUDGEMENTS IN HEALTH INSURANCE

---

Case Summary: Mr. Gaurang Jain vs Star Health Insurance Co. Ltd. (9 May 2023)

Key Issue:

• The case primarily deals with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission.
• The appellant, Mr. Gaurang Jain, sought relief from the State Commission after his complaint against Star Health Insurance Co. Ltd. was dismissed without what he claimed was a proper hearing.

Arguments Presented:

✅ Appellant’s Claim:

• He was unaware that the final order had been passed on 04.04.2022 and only discovered it while checking the case status online in June 2022.
• He obtained a certified copy of the order on 30.06.2022 and subsequently filed the appeal with a 75-day delay.
• Argued that there was sufficient cause for the delay as he had a genuine impression that the case was still ongoing.

✅ Legal References Cited:

• Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Appeals must be filed within 45 days from the date of the order unless there is a “sufficient cause” for the delay.
• Basawaraj & Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (2014) – Explained that courts must assess if the delay was due to genuine, unavoidable reasons and not due to negligence or lack of diligence.
• Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. (2015) – Stressed that delays should be justified with specific reasons, and consumer cases should be adjudicated swiftly.

Final Judgment:

❌ Condonation of delay was denied.
❌ The State Commission ruled that the appellant failed to provide a valid justification for the 75-day delay.
❌ The court emphasized that consumer protection laws have strict time limits to ensure quick dispute resolution.

Key Takeaways:

• Strict timelines in consumer cases – Appeals must be filed within the prescribed period unless a strong, unavoidable reason is presented.
• Lack of diligence can weaken a case – Courts expect proactive follow-ups from litigants.
• “Sufficient cause” must be well-explained – Merely assuming that the case was ongoing is not a valid reason for delay.

---

Issue:

The case revolves around a health insurance claim dispute between Smt. Aarti Chandnani (complainant) and Star Health & Allied Insurance Company Limited (appellant/insurance company).

• Background:
  • Aarti Chandnani and her family were insured under a Family Health Optima Insurance Plan with a sum assured of ₹3,00,000/-.
  • She had a pre-existing heart condition and had undergone heart surgery in 2008.
  • The insurance company issued the policy after assuring that, since she had maintained good health for the past five years, she was eligible for coverage.
  • During the policy period (07.07.2015 to 06.07.2016), she was hospitalized at Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi from 04.01.2016 to 08.01.2016, incurring ₹73,340/- in medical expenses.
• Claim and Rejection:
  • Chandnani filed a reimbursement claim, but the insurance company rejected it on 06.02.2016, citing non-disclosure of a pre-existing disease (her past heart surgery).
  • The insurance company argued that her failure to disclose this information violated Condition No. 8 of the policy, justifying the rejection.
• District Commission’s Decision:
  • The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar ruled in favor of Aarti Chandnani on 14.02.2019, directing the insurer to:
    • Pay ₹73,340/- along with 6% annual interest from the complaint date.
    • Pay ₹5,000/- as legal expenses.
  • The insurance company appealed against this decision.

Judgment (Appeal Decision):

The appellate authority (Consumer Commission) overturned the District Commission’s ruling, allowing the insurance company’s appeal on 22.03.2024, with the following key observations:

1. Non-disclosure of Material Facts:
   • The complainant did not disclose her heart surgery in 2008 while applying for the insurance policy.
   • The discharge summary from Fortis Escorts Heart Institute confirmed she had a pre-existing heart condition and was on medication (Acitrom 3mg).
2. Violation of Contractual Terms:
   • According to Condition No. 8 of the policy and Exclusion Clause No. 3.1, pre-existing diseases are not covered unless continuous coverage of 48 months (4 years) has elapsed since the policy’s inception.
   • As her first policy started on 07.07.2014, she had not completed 48 months of continuous coverage by the time of her hospitalization in January 2016.
3. Legal Precedents:
   • The judgment referenced multiple Supreme Court and National Commission rulings emphasizing that insurance contracts require “utmost good faith”, meaning full disclosure of medical history is mandatory.
   • Courts have consistently held that concealment of pre-existing conditions can lead to policy repudiation.
4. Conclusion:
   • The District Commission failed to apply legal principles correctly and did not consider the policy’s exclusion clause.
   • There was no deficiency in service by the insurance company since the claim was rightfully repudiated.
   • Final Order: The appeal was allowed, the District Commission’s order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. No compensation was awarded to the complainant.

Key Takeaways:

• Honesty in insurance applications is crucial. Non-disclosure of a pre-existing condition can result in claim rejection.
• Policy terms and exclusion clauses matter. If an insurance contract requires a continuous 48-month period for covering pre-existing diseases, claims made before that period can be denied.
• Legal Precedents favor insurers in cases of material misrepresentation. Courts uphold insurance companies’ right to reject claims where medical history is misrepresented.

---

Issue:

The core issue in this case revolves around the non-disclosure of pre-existing ailments by the insured while filling out the proposal form for a health insurance policy. The complainant’s claim was denied by the insurance company on the grounds that he had suppressed material facts about pre-existing diseases. The District Forum and the State Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, stating that the insurance company had continued to accept premiums despite knowing about the medical condition.

Judgment:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that suppression of material facts regarding pre-existing ailments in an insurance proposal form entitles the insurance company to repudiate the claim. However, the burden of proof is on the insurance company to establish that false representations were made by the insured.

In this case:

• It was undisputed that the complainant had pre-existing ailments that were not disclosed in the proposal form.
• The insured argued that he had signed a blank proposal form without being informed about the exclusion of pre-existing diseases.
• The Supreme Court, in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod (2019) 6 SCC 175, held that a person signing a proposal form without reading or understanding it cannot escape the consequences of incorrect information.
• The insurance policy was a continuation of an earlier policy, meaning the disclosure requirement applied from the original policy inception.
• The previous claim had been denied due to hospitalization requirements, but this did not prevent the insurer from rejecting a subsequent claim based on non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions.

The court concluded that the insurance company was justified in rejecting the claim due to material non-disclosure. Consequently, the State Commission’s order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed.

---

In the case of Pavan Sachdeva vs. Office of The Insurance Ombudsman and Another, decided on July 27, 2020, the petitioner, Pavan Sachdeva, challenged the rejection of his medical insurance claim by the insurer, Cigna TTK Health Insurance. Sachdeva had obtained a health insurance policy on August 14, 2017. On September 16, 2017, he experienced chest pain and was subsequently diagnosed with a cardiac condition requiring bypass surgery, which was performed on September 23, 2017. He filed a claim of ₹6,06,859 for medical expenses incurred. The insurer denied the claim, citing non-disclosure of a pre-existing condition—Sarcoidosis from 1982—as the reason for repudiation. ​Indian Kanoon+1LexTechSuite+1

The Insurance Ombudsman upheld the insurer’s decision, leading Sachdeva to file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. The court observed that the discharge summary noted a past medical history of “Sarcoidosis 1982 took steroids for 3 months,” indicating a brief treatment period 35 years prior to obtaining the policy. The court concluded that this did not constitute a material non-disclosure justifying claim denial. Consequently, the court set aside the Ombudsman’s order and directed the insurer to pay ₹6,06,859 to Sachdeva, along with simple interest at 9% per annum from October 1, 2017, until the payment date, and an additional ₹25,000 as costs. ​

---

​Issue:
Whether Star Health and Allied Insurance Company was justified in repeatedly demanding additional documents and ultimately denying the cashless hospitalization claim of Sukhdeep Singh Bhinder despite his eligibility under the policy terms.

Judgment:
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, found that Star Health and Allied Insurance Company engaged in unfair practices by unnecessarily delaying the claim process and harassing the complainant with repeated demands for documents that had already been submitted. The Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the insurance company to:

1. Settle the claim and reimburse the medical expenses incurred.
2. Pay compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
3. Pay litigation costs incurred by the complainant.

The judgment reaffirmed the duty of insurance companies to process claims in a fair and timely manner and emphasized consumer rights against arbitrary denial of legitimate claims.

---

Issue:
Whether Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. was justified in denying the hospitalization claim of Parmjit Singh Guleria on the grounds of non-disclosure of pre-existing diseases, despite prior assurances of coverage, and whether the cancellation of the policy without proper notice was lawful.

Judgment:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, after reviewing the evidence, ruled in favor of the complainant, Parmjit Singh Guleria. It held that:

1. The complainant had been assured at the time of policy purchase that his pre-existing conditions (heart bypass, kidney transplant, and diabetes) would be covered from the second year onward.
2. The insurance company wrongfully rejected his claim for hospitalization due to Postural Hypotension and Angina.
3. The insurer also unlawfully canceled the policy without following the mandatory IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority) rules, which require prior notice, deduction of cancellation fees, and proper refund procedures.

The Commission directed Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. to:

• Settle the hospitalization claim as per policy terms.
• Compensate the complainant for harassment and financial loss.
• Pay litigation costs.

The judgment reinforced consumer rights, emphasizing that insurance companies must adhere to policy commitments and regulatory guidelines while processing claims and policy cancellations.

---

Issue:
Whether Deepak Bansal, as the proposer of the Star Senior Citizens Red Carpet Insurance mediclaim policy, had the locus standi to file a claim on behalf of his mother, Smt. Satyavati Bansal, and whether M/S Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. was justified in limiting the claim settlement based on the sum insured at the time of hospitalization.

Judgment:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, after examining the records, ruled against the complainant, Deepak Bansal, and held that:

1. Deepak Bansal, being only the proposer of the policy and not the insured or a legal claimant, had no direct contractual relationship with the insurance company that would entitle him to claim benefits.
2. The insurance company processed the claims correctly based on the sum insured at the time of hospitalization. The enhancement of coverage from one lakh to three lakhs was done after the hospitalization, and hence, the higher coverage could not be retrospectively applied.
3. The claim for clubbing the sum insured under two policy periods was not supported by any terms and conditions of the policy.
4. The complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as hospital break-up bills, treatment papers, medicine bills, and lab reports, to support his claim for a higher settlement.

The Commission concluded that Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. acted within policy terms and conditions, and the complaint was dismissed for lack of insurable interest and documentary evidence.

---

Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. vs Smt. Aarti Chandnani (22 March 2024)

Key Issues:

1. Repudiation of Insurance Claim – The insurance company rejected the claim on the grounds that the insured (Smt. Aarti Chandnani’s husband) failed to disclose pre-existing conditions at the time of obtaining the policy.
2. Consumer Protection Act Appeal – The case was an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the District Commission’s decision, which had ruled in favor of the complainant.
3. Insurance Contract & Good Faith – The insurer argued that the non-disclosure of material facts (pre-existing heart condition) amounted to misrepresentation, violating Condition No. 8 of the policy.
4. Precedents Cited:
   • Maya Devi Vs. LIC of India (2011) – Supreme Court ruling that insurance contracts are based on utmost good faith, and suppression of material facts can justify claim repudiation.
   • SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sosan (2020) – Emphasized the importance of accurate disclosure in proposal forms.

Court’s Analysis & Decision:

✅ District Commission’s Ruling (2019) – The consumer complaint was allowed, finding the insurance company’s rejection unjustified.
✅ Insured’s Defense – The complainant had disclosed the pre-existing condition, and the insurer had still issued the policy after medical evaluation.
✅ Final Judgment – The appeal was dismissed, upholding that:

• The insurance company wrongfully repudiated the claim.
• The complainant was entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses.
• The insurance company had acted unfairly, violating consumer rights.

Key Takeaways:

• Insurers cannot reject claims arbitrarily if they issue policies with full knowledge of pre-existing conditions.
• Disclosure obligations apply to both parties – insurers must conduct proper risk assessments before policy issuance.
• Consumer protection laws provide strong safeguards against unfair claim denials.

---

Case Summary: Hans Raj Jain vs M/S Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. (6 October 2023)

Key Issue:

• The case revolves around a health insurance claim dispute between Hans Raj Jain (Complainant) and Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. (Opposite Party – OP).
• The primary contention is regarding the amount payable under the insurance policy and whether the insured sum should be disbursed in full.

Arguments Presented:

✅ Complainant’s Claims:

• He had filed a claim for Rs. 19,541/- (medical expenses).
• He argued that the insurance company was liable to pay Rs. 500 per day for medical expenses under the policy terms.
• He also sought Rs. 2,00,000/- as the insured sum and Rs. 84,041/- as additional compensation for distress.

✅ Insurance Company’s Response:

• Only Rs. 9,088/- was approved based on policy exclusions and co-pay clauses.
• Rs. 12,000/- was given as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
• The policy did not guarantee full payment of the sum assured (Rs. 2,00,000/-) unless medical bills exceeded that amount.

Court’s Decision:

✅ Partly Allowed

• The claim amount of Rs. 19,541/- was found to be valid.
• Compensation of Rs. 12,000/- was granted for mental agony and litigation.
• The demand for Rs. 2,00,000/- as a full payout of the sum assured was denied, as the policy terms did not guarantee such a payment.
• The insurance company was not liable to pay beyond the actual medical expenses incurred.

Key Takeaways:

• Sum assured ≠ Guaranteed payout – Insurance companies only reimburse actual medical expenses incurred up to the policy limit.
• Co-pay and exclusions matter – Claim amounts can be reduced based on policy conditions.
• Legal battles for insurance claims can be lengthy – The complainant fought for additional payments but only received what was originally agreed upon.
• Partial relief was granted – The complainant was reimbursed for medical expenses and awarded compensation, but the court did not entertain excessive claims.

---

Case Summary: M/S Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Surender Malhotra (12 September 2023)

Key Issue:

• The dispute arose when Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. (Petitioner) failed to file a Written Statement within the statutory period in response to a consumer complaint by Surender Malhotra (Respondent).
• The District Commission refused to accept the delayed Written Statement.
• The insurance company challenged this decision before the State Commission via a Revision Petition, seeking condonation of delay.

Arguments Presented:

✅ Petitioner (Star Health Insurance) Claimed:

• The delay of 77 days was due to unforeseen circumstances.
• The file containing the complaint documents got misplaced in the office of their counsel, leading to the delay in filing the Written Statement.
• The District Commission’s decision should be set aside as the delay was unintentional.

✅ Respondent (Surender Malhotra) Countered:

• The complete set of documents was provided to the insurance company’s counsel via email on 02.03.2022 and again on 12.09.2022.
• The company admitted receiving these documents but still failed to file the response within time.
• The delay was due to negligence, and there was no justifiable reason to allow the late submission.
• The District Commission acted within its jurisdiction in rejecting the Written Statement.

Court’s Decision:

❌ Petition Dismissed

• The State Commission found no error in the District Commission’s ruling.
• No sufficient cause was demonstrated to justify the delay.
• The claim of misplacing the documents was not an acceptable excuse.
• The court emphasized that consumer disputes need to be resolved expeditiously, and accepting excessively delayed filings would defeat this purpose.

Key Takeaways:

• Statutory deadlines matter – Failure to file responses within the legal timeframe can result in rejection.
• Negligence is not an excuse – Courts expect parties, especially corporations, to exercise due diligence in legal proceedings.
• Email communication is valid service – If a party acknowledges receipt of documents via email, it cannot later claim it was unaware.
• Consumer courts prioritize timely justice – Delays without valid reasons are not entertained, reinforcing the importance of procedural compliance.

---

Case Summary: Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Renu Abbhi (12 July 2017)

Key Issue:

• Renu Abbhi filed a consumer complaint after Star Health & Allied Insurance denied her claim for medical expenses related to a malignant tumor diagnosis.
• She sought ₹4,00,000 in reimbursement, alleging deficiency in service by the insurance company.
• The District Forum ruled in her favor, ordering the insurer to pay ₹3,10,243 along with compensation and litigation costs.
• Star Health appealed against this decision before the State Commission.

Arguments Presented:

✅ Complainant (Renu Abbhi) Claimed:

• She purchased a health insurance policy from Star Health and paid the required premium.
• She was diagnosed with breast cancer and incurred ₹43,545 in hospital bills and ₹2,70,000 in medicine costs.
• The insurer wrongfully repudiated her claim.

✅ Insurer (Star Health) Defended:

• The policy terms limited the liability of the insurer.
• The complainant cannot accept some policy terms while rejecting others (referencing the Supreme Court ruling in R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir).
• The District Forum awarded an excessive amount, exceeding policy limits.

Court’s Decision:

⚖ Appeal Partly Allowed

• The State Commission reduced the compensation from ₹3,10,243 to ₹2,00,000.
• Interest at 9% per annum to be paid from the date of the complaint until realization.
• ₹10,000 for harassment and mental agony was upheld.
• ₹5,000 for litigation costs was also upheld.
• The insurance policy terms (Annexure OP-1) were upheld, and the complainant was bound by the policy’s terms.

Key Takeaways:

• Policy terms dictate claim limits – Courts will enforce insurance policies as written, even in medical emergencies.
• Partial relief can be granted – Even if a claim is partly denied, courts can award a fair settlement.
• Interest and compensation are common – If an insurer wrongfully denies a claim, courts often award interest on the amount due and compensation for mental harassment.
• Consumer courts balance fairness with contractual obligations – Insurers cannot completely evade liability, but claimants must also adhere to policy terms.