12.07.2015 Views

Death Claim - Gbic.co.in

Death Claim - Gbic.co.in

Death Claim - Gbic.co.in

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Hyderabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. : L-21-001-0121-2006-07Smt. Mallavva S. JallerVsLife Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward dated 29.10.2006Head Notes: <strong>Death</strong> claim repudiated by LIC on grounds of suppression of material facts– Re<strong>co</strong>rd of treatment prior to the <strong>co</strong>mmencement of policy submitted by LIC -<strong>co</strong>mpla<strong>in</strong>t rejected.FACTS OF THE CASE(Late) Honnappa Siddappa Jaller obta<strong>in</strong>ed Policy No.637341548 for Rs.100000/- underTable 149-21 with a half yearly premium of Rs.2647/-. The policy <strong>co</strong>mmenced on28.09.2004 and the LA died on 06.04.2005 due to encephalitis. As the LA died with<strong>in</strong> 6months from <strong>co</strong>mmencement, LIC enquired <strong>in</strong>to the bonafides of the claim. As per theirenquiries the LA had taken treatment from Dr. S.C. Bangalore, MBBS for presence ofglands on the right side of neck. The obta<strong>in</strong>ed prescription slips given by the doctor, asper which the LA was prescribed Akurit-4 tablets for 45 days. LIC produced evidence of<strong>co</strong>nsultations on subsequent dates also from the same doctor. The <strong>in</strong>surer <strong>co</strong>ntendedthat the DLA was prescribed TB drugs as he was suffer<strong>in</strong>g from TB and AIDS. Theyobta<strong>in</strong>ed op<strong>in</strong>ions from the DMR show<strong>in</strong>g all the prescription slips obta<strong>in</strong>ed by them. Astheir DMR op<strong>in</strong>ed that the LA was under treatment for TB before <strong>co</strong>mmencement, theyrepudiated the claim.The evidence produced by LIC suggests treatment taken for TB. Section 45 is notapplicable and the <strong>in</strong>surer proved suppression of fact relat<strong>in</strong>g to treatment taken before<strong>co</strong>mmencement of the policy. Hence decision of LIC upheld and <strong>co</strong>mpla<strong>in</strong>t was reject.Hyderabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. : L-21-001-0126-2006-07Sri SomasekharVsLife Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward dated : 07.11.2006Head Notes: <strong>Death</strong> <strong>Claim</strong>s under two policies repudiated by LIC alleg<strong>in</strong>g suppressionof facts – Compla<strong>in</strong>t rejected.FACTS OF THE CASELate Smt. Laxmamma W/o Somasekhar obta<strong>in</strong>ed two policies bear<strong>in</strong>g no.722519725 forRs.50000/- and 722520811 for Rs.25000/- from Sriranga Patna Branch of MysoreDivision. These two policies were taken under Janaraksha Plan (91-Table) for a 20-year term. The policies <strong>co</strong>mmenced on 15.01.2003 & 15.02.2003 respectively with halfyearlymode of premium. The LA died on 05.02.2005 allegedly due to chest pa<strong>in</strong>.As claims occurred <strong>in</strong> less than three years, LIC enquired <strong>in</strong>to the merits of the case.They came to know that the LA was suffer<strong>in</strong>g from renal disease one year prior to<strong>co</strong>mmencement of the policies and was undergo<strong>in</strong>g haemodialysis for at least twoyears prior to death. Medical re<strong>co</strong>rd relat<strong>in</strong>g to treatment from 12/2001 onwards wasobta<strong>in</strong>ed by LIC. Further there was no cross reference of previous <strong>in</strong>surance <strong>in</strong> thepolicies. LIC also found out that the LA obta<strong>in</strong>ed two more policies bear<strong>in</strong>g

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!