Dear Amar, I am afraid your last 2 suggestions are almost dangerous. I completely agree with Harish sir with out even getting in to discussing fair appointment and subjectivity involved in the expert opinion.
The attempt of any regulations should be to minimise procedures and manual intervention. And personally, I would rather pay extra premium upfront than making my nomeny struggle to get my policy benefit after my death. On a more constructive note, we can seek clarification from IRDA which would be applicable to all insurers; as for the time being, no all-applicable regulation is in place and mentioned judgement may work only as a precedent. For a matter fact, I have 3 policies Term policy Jeevan Saral, Jeevanand and 1 more. I did not have to pay any extra premium to LICI for my disability. Even for settlement, there’s no different process for assessment according to my agent. As things stand, it is advisable for sighted and even disables to go for LICI policies as settlements are smooth. I have seen it. Do please count me in if you are thinking of any concrete future action… Regards On 5/19/13, Amar Jain <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Scholars, > > I would like this discussion to be restricted to legal points, except > when other points are equally important to substantiate the answers. > If the moderator permits and other members have no objections, then I > would love to see this matter being discussed on one other group which > I think has quality experts to deal with the matter, and the group is > We The PWD. So, cross-posting permission is sought in the matter. > > I have been through the judgment passed in the matter of Vikas Gupta > vs. Union of India and Anr. when it was passed, and from what I > remember that the judgment was passed in terms of postal life > insurance in which the maximum amount with which the person with > disability can be insured and additional premium being charged by the > insurer on the ground of increased risk which can be incidental cause > for insurer to undertake his liability in the event of any loss being > caused were in issue. And from what I vaguely remember, the judgment > was based on English authorities, as there was no case-law available > as far as Indian judiciary is concerned. Though I don't remember the > grounds on which the judgment was ultimately passed. > > Subsequently, the postal department issued the circular / notification > (not sure what was issued), removing both the conditions. > > I will also be approaching LIC for a policy in coming months, and even > my agent has told me that additional premium will be charged, and the > seniors have also told the same verbally. I have not taken up this > issue in my individual capacity yet with the corporation directly. My > questions are as below: > > 1. The judgment did not settle the issue at once for all. As it was a > writ petition (remedy for an individual), and it confined to the > issuance of postal life insurance. So, though the judgment can be > treated as a good precedent, and the ratio can be relied upon for > arguing cases subsequently. But, can it be said to have binding effect > on all? > > 2. Even if the answer is in affirmative, then on whom the judgment > will have the binding effect? (Will it be restricted to those > considered as state under Art. 12) or, even the private insurers can > be brought under the realm of this judgment? > > 3. Apart from the grounds of discrimination and other similar grounds > which are constitutionally available, and considering the fact that > disability (except lunacy) is no bar when it comes to contracting > capacity and insurance contract is no exception for us, how do we > practically justify that disability will not affect the risk which is > being underwritten materially in case of the happening of an event due > to disability? > > Important: Can we say that in such cases the principle of causa > proxima (the immediate cause of happening of the event) will apply > while deciding whether the insured's claim is allowed or not? > > 4. Keeping the fact in mind that life insurance is based on human > value concept, would other insurances be governed differently? > > 5. Lastly, in case of a mediclaim policy, can we say that the existing > disability and its effects which may happen in general subsequently, > be excluded and all other benefits be allowed? (In such cases, the > effects should also be clearly defined when policy is being issued). > This I think should be quite a good possibility. > > -- > Amar Jain. > Website: www.amarjain.com > > Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of > mobile phones / Tabs on: > http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe send a message to > [email protected] > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please > visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Disclaimer: > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the > person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; > > 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails > sent through this mailing list.. > -- “The waves breaking on the surface draw all the attention, but it is the current beneath the water that determines your direction.” Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
