Health Insurance Portability Regulations
Subject : Civil Law - Insurance Law
In a significant ruling for policyholders, the Bombay High Court has affirmed that insurance companies cannot shirk their responsibility when accepting ported health insurance policies. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, presiding over Care Health Insurance vs. Manjula Haresh Joisar , held that when an insurer chooses to accept a "ported" policy, they do so with full disclosure of the regulatory framework and a duty to perform due diligence regarding the insured's medical and claim history.
The conflict arose after the husband of the respondent, the late Mr. Haresh K. Joisar, moved his health insurance from Star Health and Allied Insurance to Care Health Insurance in January 2022. While Mr. Joisar had a prior history of carcinoma, for which he had undergone successful treatment, Care Health repudiated a subsequent claim, citing "non-disclosure" of this history.
Care Health argued that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDAI) portal, maintained by the Indian Insurance Bureau (IIB), had been dysfunctional at the time of porting, preventing them from accessing the full medical history. They contended that under the doctrine of uberrima fide (utmost good faith), the burden of full disclosure remained on the insured.
The Court turned its focus to the IRDAI (Health Insurance) Regulations, 2016. Justice Sundaresan noted that the regulatory framework for porting is not merely a formality but a structured process to facilitate seamless coverage migration.
The Court observed that:
* The Right to Reject: The regulations grant the receiving insurer a clear window to assess the risk. If the necessary information from the previous insurer is missing or unavailable, the new insurer has the right—and, effectively, the duty—to reject the porting request.
* The Duty of Diligence: By accepting the premium and the policy migration, the insurer is presumed to have made an "informed decision." An insurer cannot accept the commercial benefit of a new policy while ignoring their responsibility to verify the underlying risk—a process effectively bypassed if they fail to wait for necessary data.
The judgment clarifies that the insurer cannot rely on administrative excuses to circumvent the protection provided to the insured:
> "It is inexplicable that Care Health agreed to port the policy and accept the premium without the information being made available by Star Health... [The] breakdown in the IIB portal cannot be the reason for excusing Care Health from exercise of diligence."
> "When the insurer accepts the porting request, he does so with eyes open and it is presumed to be an informed decision."
> "Having accepted the insurance policy and the premium, in my opinion, there is no justification for Care Health to disclaim knowledge of the claim history with Star Health."
The High Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder that health insurance "porting" is intended to protect the consumer, not to be a loophole for insurers to deny claims later based on information they chose not to verify.
By prioritizing the "regulatory objective of permitting hassle-free migration," the court has reinforced the principle that insurers must behave as mature, diligent entities. If an insurer opts to take on a risk without conducting the necessary checks—even when external portals fail—they must bear the consequences. This ruling will likely discourage insurance providers from accepting porting requests hastily and then retrospectively investigating for pre-existing conditions after a claim is filed.
The Petition filed by Care Health was dismissed, and the Insurance Ombudsman's initial award in favor of the policyholder remains standing.
Portability - Due Diligence - Underwriting - Non-Disclosure - Risk - Migration
#InsuranceLaw #BombayHighCourt
Assigning Administrative Charges to Tainted Officials Violates Natural Justice: MP High Court Quashes PWD Order
16 Jun 2026
SC Rules Walking on Footpaths is Fundamental Right
19 Jun 2026
Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Invoked for Title Disputes Unless Section 23 Applies: Allahabad High Court
04 Jul 2026
Vague And Nebulous Allegations Do Not Warrant Judicial Interference In Policy Matters: Patna High Court
04 Jul 2026
12-Year Possession Mandatory To Resist Land Eviction: Jharkhand HC
04 Jul 2026
Advocates Have No Right to Demand Out-Of-Turn Listing of Cases: Madras High Court
07 Jul 2026
Delhi High Court Examines Personality Rights in Cricket Lawsuit
07 Jul 2026
Sale of Expired Food Products Amounts to Deficiency in Service: Kurnool Consumer Commission Imposes Punitive Damages Under Consumer Protection Act, 2019
13 Jul 2026
Gujarat HC Stays Divorce Decree Under Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act
15 Jul 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.