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

HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President;
Smt. Basanti Devi, Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
DR. R.K. KESWANI—Respondent
First Appeal No. 42 of 1991—Decided on 30.10.1991

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. M.B. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Naresh Katyal, Advocate.

The exclusionary clause in the MED-I-CLAIM policy does not exclude liability for pre-existing diseases.

Headnote:

MED-I-CLAIM POLICY - EXCLUSIONARY CLAUSE - INTERPRETATION - PRE-EXISTING DISEASE - APPLICABILITY - INSURANCE COMPANY'S LIABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Dr. R.K. Keswani, a retired professor and head of the Department of Surgery, took out a Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy (MED-I-CLAIM) from the National Insurance Company Limited. In his proposal form, he disclosed his pre-existing condition of Ischemic Heart Disease from 1969 to 1990. The policy was accepted, and the premium was paid. Later, Dr. Keswani underwent Coronary By-pass Surgery and Prostrate Gland Surgery. He submitted claims for reimbursement, but the company denied liability, citing the exclusionary clause in the policy.

Finding of the Court:

The District Forum accepted Dr. Keswani's case and directed the company to reimburse 80% of the claimed amount. The company appealed, arguing that the exclusionary clause barred liability for pre-existing diseases.

Issues: 1. Whether the exclusionary clause in the MED-I-CLAIM policy excludes liability for pre-existing diseases? 2. Whether the company is liable to reimburse Dr. Keswani's medical expenses?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the exclusionary clause, which stated that any disease suffered by the insured person during the first 30 days from the commencement date of the policy is excluded. The court held that this clause does not refer to pre-existing diseases and that the risk covered begins after the expiry of one month from the date of the policy. 2. The court further held that the two exceptions to the exclusionary clause, namely, the opinion of a panel of medical practitioners and continuous coverage for 12 months, indicate that the clause is not intended to exclude pre-existing diseases.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum, directing the company to reimburse Dr. Keswani's medical expenses.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, J.—The true import of the first exclusionary clause of Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy (MED-I-CLAIM) of the National Insurance Company Limited is the solitary but very significant question in this appeal.

2. The respondent Dr. R.K. Keswani is a distinguished professional who retired as the Professor and Head of the Department of Surgery and Director of Medical College Rohtak. He took out a Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy of the appellant company for a period of one year from the 6th of March, 1990 to the 5th of March, 1991. In the original proposal from Dr. Keswani with total candour expressly and prominently mentioned that he was a chronic patient of Ischemic Heart Disease from 1969 to 1990 and had received treatment from Dr. S.C. Sachdeva, Professor of Medical College, Rohtak and was not fully cured of the same. The proposal form of the complainat-respondent was accepted and he made a payment of Rs. 1,350/- as the annual premium which was duly received and the relevant policy issued in his favour.

3. After more than four months of the commencement of the said policy Dr. Keswani developed prostrate gland trouble and on consulting a medical expert, he was advised that he should first take remedial action for his heart ailment. Accordingly for diagnostic purposes he got himself admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi on 30th of July, 1990 and was discharged on the following day with the advice that a Coronary By-pass Surgery was necessitated in his case. Consequently he later entered as an indoor patient in the aforesaid Institution at New Delhi on the 7th of September, 1990 and was operated for Coronary By-pass Surgery at his own expense and after convalesce was discharged from the said hospital. However, for his prostrate gland he again entered the said Institution on the 6th of October, 1990 and was operated on the 12th of that month and discharged thereafter on the 17th of October, 1990. There is no dispute that he had to personally bear all the expenses for the aforementioned hospitalisation as an indoor patient and he submitted three bills to the appellant company for reimbursement being Annexures ‘B’ ‘C and ‘D’ to the tune of Rs. 3520-45P, Rs. 25.790-38P and Rs. 7351-88P totalling a sum of Rs. 36,662-7IP. Far from considering or settling the said claim the appellant Company brusquely brushed them aside. This stand was purported to be taken on the ground that by virtue of the exclusionary Clause No. 1 of the Policy, there was no liability on the Company for the treatment of any pre-existing disease prior to the date of the policy. It was the appellant Company’s case that since on his own showing Dr. Keswani was a patient of heart disease since 1969, no medical expenses for the treatment thereof were payable. The complainant inevitably remonstrated with senior officials of the Company that the stand taken on its behalf was not correct, but repeated protestations to that effect were of no avail. Even as regards his second claim of expenses for the operation for the prostrate gland, the appellant Company instead of entertaining the same issued a letter dated the 31st of October, 1990 intimating that they had unilaterly cancelled the policy with immediate effect and as such no further claims could be entertained or sanctioned.

4. Driven to the wall Dr. Keswani then knocked at the door of the District Forum, Hisar for redress. The primal relief sought was the reimbursement of the medical expenses and the setting aside of the letter denying liability and the subsequent total cancellation of the policy. The complaint was supported by a host of unchallenged documents containing the opinion and advice of the medical experts and the bills paid in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, as also the communications of the appellant company repudiating their liability. On notice being issued to the appell


















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