SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 3637

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Saurabh Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Niva Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 6074 of 2019
Decided On : 18-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Siddharth Nath, Mr. Anunay Chodhary & Ms. Khusbhoo Hora, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep K Bakshi, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Rajiv Jaiswal, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Neeraj Malhotra Senior Advocate with Mr. Nimish Kumar & Mr. Abhishek Nanda Advocates for R-3.

Persons with disabilities are entitled to health insurance coverage and insurance products should be designed to enable them to obtain health insurance coverage. The principle of reasonable accommodation must be applied to ensure that society and the state provide additional support and facilities necessary for persons with disabilities to lead a life of equal worth and dignity.

Headnote:

Health Insurance - Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 - Sections 3, 25, 26 of RPwD Act - The court analyzed the legal position surrounding the right to health and healthcare for persons with disabilities. It highlighted the prohibition of discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of health insurance under the RPwD Act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The court issued directions to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to ensure the design and introduction of insurance products for persons with disabilities, review the rejection of health insurance policy for the petitioner, and modify the terminology 'sub-standard lives' in their regulations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an investment banking professional suffering from Tetraplegia and paralysis, approached two insurance companies for health insurance but was refused. The court analyzed the legal position surrounding the right to health and healthcare for persons with disabilities and issued directions to IRDAI to ensure the design and introduction of insurance products for persons with disabilities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that persons with disabilities are entitled to health insurance coverage and directed IRDAI to ensure the design and introduction of insurance products for persons with disabilities. It also directed the insurance companies to review the rejection of health insurance policy for the petitioner and modify the terminology 'sub-standard lives' in their regulations.

Issues: The issues involved the refusal of health insurance policy for the petitioner by insurance companies and the non-implementation of regulations by IRDAI for providing health insurance coverage to persons with disabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that persons with disabilities are entitled to health insurance coverage and directed IRDAI to ensure the design and introduction of insurance products for persons with disabilities. It also directed the insurance companies to review the rejection of health insurance policy for the petitioner and modify the terminology 'sub-standard lives' in their regulations.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition and directed IRDAI to ensure the design and introduction of insurance products for persons with disabilities, review the rejection of health insurance policy for the petitioner, and modify the terminology 'sub-standard lives' in their regulations.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

Introduction

2. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 unequivocally recognised the rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwD) to lead a dignified life and to be treated in a non- discriminatory manner. Such rights are also inherently recognised by virtue of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in India, was with the avowed object of giving effect to the said Convention and the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Despite these international conventions and statutes which have been enacted recognizing the rights of PwDs, actual equality on the ground remains elusive - though there is positive effort in the right direction. It is also well established that the Right to life includes the Right to avail healthcare including medical insurance. However, PwDs were unable to obtain medical insurance.

3. The present petition highlighted one such aspect of equality for persons with disabilities i.e., the right to obtain medical/health insurance. The Petitioner who is an investment banking professional had filed the present petition as he was refused medical insurance company. The Court was then apprised of the fact that insurance for PWD was almost non- existent. The petition also revealed the complete non-implementation of any regulation or supervision by IRDAI towards this issue. When the petition was initially filed, the Court was apprised of the fact that insurance for PwDs was almost non-existent.

4. It was in these circumstances that directions were issued from time to time in this writ petition, to the IRDAI as also to insurance companies, which has resulted in a positive outcome for PwDs. By the conclusion of the proceedings in the present petition, 29 insurance companies in India have introduced insurance products for persons with disabilities, in effect offering them a ray of hope, to avail of health insurance.

Background

5. The present petition has been preferred by Mr. Saurabh Shukla who is suffering from Tetraplegia and paralysis below his chest due to a spinal cord injury which he had suffered in 2011. He is confined to a wheelchair and has limited use of his arms. Despite the injury, he is currently working as an investment banking professional with a hedge fund and is working from home. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present petition is that he approached two insurance companies i.e., Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. (now Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd.) & Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., for seeking a Mediclaim/Health Insurance. However, both the Insurance companies initially refused to issue or offer any health insurance policy to the Petitioner.

6. The Petitioner had initially approached the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Disabilities vide representation dated 7th January, 2018 to raise his grievance against the health insurance companies. Vide letter dated 14th March, 2018, the Dy. Chief Commissioner of the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Disabilities took up the matter with The Chairperson, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). The relevant extract of the communication addressed to the Chairperson, IRDAI is as follows:

"2. Section 75 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on his own motion or on application of any aggrieved person or otherwise to look into the complaints inter-alia, with respect to matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and to take steps to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to them.

3. You are advised to look into the matter and advice the insurance companies to initiate the policies for persons with disabilities. It is ensured that persons with disabilities are not deprived of their legitimate rights. Action ta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top