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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J.
Kumud Mahendra Parekh – Petitioner 
Versus
The National Insurance Company Ltd., Represented By Regional Manager and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) no. 15628 of 2021
Decided On : 17-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.P. Jacob, Mariyam Jacob.
For the Respondents: George A. Cherian, SC, Soumya Francis.

The court held that a claim cannot be denied based on a pre-existing condition unless there is evidence of treatment or symptoms within 48 months prior to the policy issuance.

Headnote:(A) Insurance Act - Contracts of Insurance - Utmost Good Faith - The petitioner’s medical insurance claim was rejected on grounds of pre-existing disease; however, the court found insufficient evidence of any treatment or symptoms within 48 months prior to the policy's issuance. The discharge summary cited was not conclusive of a pre-existing condition as defined in the policy. The rejection of the claim was deemed illegal and improper. (Paras 1, 3, 12, 14)

(B) Insurer's Burden of Proof - The insurer bears the burden of proof regarding the existence of a pre-existing disease when claims are denied due to alleged non-disclosure by the insured. The court asserted that the rejection must adhere strictly to the definitions laid out in the insurance contract. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, aged 74, availed of a medical insurance policy during her travels and later sought coverage for treatment incurred while abroad. The insurance company denied the claim, citing undisclosed pre-existing conditions despite prior medical examination reports.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the denial of the petitioner’s claim was not substantiated and directed the insurer to process the payment due.

Issues: The core issue revolved around whether the petitioner’s previous medical conditions constituted a material fact that should have been disclosed in the insurance proposal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that without evidence demonstrating a pre-existing condition within 48 months of the policy, the rejection of the claim was unfounded.

Result: Writ Petition allowed, directing payment of the claim.

Table of Content
1. insurance policy details and claim origin. (Para 1 , 2)
2. claims of pre-existing conditions and responses. (Para 3 , 5)
3. court's analysis of policy terms and conditions. (Para 4 , 6 , 7)
4. definition and relevance of pre-existing conditions. (Para 8 , 11 , 12)
5. judicial interpretation of insurance claims and obligations. (Para 9 , 10)
6. final order granting claim and directing compliance. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

BASANT BALAJI, J.

The petitioner had availed a medical insurance policy to get insured in connection with an overseas journey to the United Kingdom and Dubai. The insurance policy was valid from 25.09.2019 to midnight of 10.11.2019. Ext.P1 is the policy issued, and as per the contract of the policy, an amount of 2,50,000 USD was covered towards accident (medical expenses), 25,000 USD towards personal accident, 1,000 USD towards loss of checked-in baggage, 100 USD for delay of checked-in Baggage, 250 USD towards loss of passport, 2,00,000 USD towards personal liability and 10,000 USD towards illness (medical expenses).

2. The petitioner was subjected to a medical examination, and a detailed investigation was conducted by a competent Doctor and Ext.P2 Medical Examination Report was produced before taking the policy. It is specifically noted that, there was no previous history of any operation or existing disability. When the petitioner was abroad, she fell ill due to fever and suffered difficulty to breath. An amount of Rs.1,77,894.57 (9007.32 AED) was spent for the treatment, and after returning, the petitioner has lodged a detailed representation and requested to extend the benefit of the health insurance policy as per Ext.P1. The 1st respondent company, after due verification and investigation, had approved the claim submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 for AED 9007.32 less USD 100. Ext.P3 is an email sent to the petitioner asking to produce certain documents. Thereafter, Ext.P4 letter dated 23.1.2020 was issued rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the grounds of pre-existing disease and related complications. The petitioner approached the Grievance Cell of the 1st respondent and filed a complaint, but the complaint was dismissed, against which the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, also vide Ext.P7, rejected the complaint on the ground that there is a reference regarding the history of bronchial asthma in the discharge summary and that the petitioner has not disclosed the same while taking the policy. The petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P7 in this Writ Petition.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by 1st and 2nd respondents, in which it is contended that the petitioner was aged about 74 years and was hospitalised at Mediclinic City Hospital, Dubai, from 23.10.2019 to 25.10.2019, as she felt difficulty in breathing. It was diagnosed as an infective exacerbation of Asthma and Respiratory failure. In the discharge summary, it is specifically noted that the patient had a history of bronchial Asthma. Ext.R1(b) is the copy of the discharge summary dated 25.10.2019. The respondents have also produced Ext.R1(c) proposal form in which, for query nos.2 and 5, the petitioner has stated that she doesn’t have any illness or disease up to the date of making the proposal or had an accident in the 12 months preceding the first day of insurance.

4. While submitting the proposal and obtaining the policy, the petitioner has suppressed vital facts regarding her existing disease and health conditions. The utmost good faith is required regarding the medical insurance policy, and the insurance contract in the instant case is void. The 1st respondent has no liability under the contract. The policy was obtained by suppressing existing diseases and ‘pre-existing diseases’ which have been specifically defined in the policy. The policy issued in this case is not a general health policy, and coverage is intended for use by the insured person in the event of a sudden illness or accident arising when the in

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