Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Holds Insurance Company Liable for Reimbursement of Medical Expenses in Health Insurance Policy Renewal Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of the policyholder, Mr. Om Prakash Ahuja, holding Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. responsible for reimbursing the medical expenses incurred by Mr. Ahuja for his late wife's ovarian cancer treatment. The judgment, delivered by Justice Rajesh Bindal, highlights the importance of disclosure in insurance policies and upholds the rights of policyholders to claim reimbursement for valid medical expenses.

The dispute arose when Mr. Ahuja's wife was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and he sought reimbursement for the treatment expenses under the health insurance policy provided by Reliance General Insurance. The insurance company repudiated the claim, citing non-disclosure of the wife's pre-existing rheumatic heart disease at the time of policy purchase. However, Mr. Ahuja contended that the non-disclosure was immaterial as the ovarian cancer was unrelated to the pre-existing condition.

The case was initially heard by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which directed the insurance company to reimburse the expenses and renew the policy. The State Commission upheld this decision, but the National Commission set aside the direction for policy renewal while affirming the reimbursement of expenses. Mr. Ahuja then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Justice Bindal, in the judgment, observed that once the insurance company accepted the claim for expenses incurred during the valid policy period, it could not refuse renewal based on the non-disclosure of the pre-existing condition. The Court emphasized that the insurance company's repudiation of the claim had already been set aside in previous proceedings. Thus, the insurance company could not raise the same defense to deny renewal to Mr. Ahuja.

The Supreme Court further noted that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority guidelines allowed refusal of renewal on grounds of fraud, moral hazard, or misrepresentation. However, in this case, the non-disclosure of the pre-existing condition could not justify the refusal to renew the policy, especially after accepting the claim for expenses incurred during the valid policy period.

Supreme Court allowed Mr. Ahuja's appeals, setting aside the National Commission's order. The Court restored the orders of the lower authorities, directing the insurance company to renew the policies and reimburse the medical expenses incurred by Mr. Ahuja.

 This landmark judgment highlights the need for insurance companies to consider valid claims and honor policyholders' rights. It provides clarity on the issue of policy renewal and emphasizes the importance of fair treatment and transparency in the insurance industry.

Date of Decision: July 04, 2023

Om Prakash Ahuja  vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. etc.                                         

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/04-Jul-2023-OM-PARKASH-VS-vS-RELIANCE-GENERAL-INSURANCE.pdf"]

Latest Legal News