[AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities
Dear all, Firstly, I applaud use of the Accessindia forum for such constructive initiatives. As the discussion around this topic is evolving, I imagine that many of us may be presently considering getting an insurance policy. If any of you are interested, I would recommend my agent, who himself is disabled, for consultation. You may finally avail services of your existing/ preferred agents for getting the policy, but having a conversation with my agent may help you gain insights into regulations/ procedures for getting a insurance policy for a disabled individual. In case anyone is interested, please write to me off-list, and I will be happy to make a formal introduction with my agent. Regards, Apoorv 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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..
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Have you divulged the fact that you have an eye disorder? I refused to take an Aviva policy some time ago simply because they were charging me a disability premium. Regards, George -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Vedprakash Sent: 21 May 2013 20:14 To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. But private agencies do not charge any extra amount on account of blindness. I have policies from icici pru, hdfc and Bajaj. none of these charge any aditional fee. - Original Message - From: Amar Jain amarjain2...@gmail.com To: accessindia accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Well, both arguments seem to sustain with each other. While it is true that people with disability do not suffer accidents due to their disability in most of the cases, but at the same time it is also true that out of a contract of insurance, the only profit which an insurer makes is the premium which anyone pays provided that the event insured never takes place. In such a case, if the cause of the event is accident due to disability, then the risk of the insurer certainly increases. It is also true that each government is responsible to us for providing infrastructure, but in practicality, it does not exist today. So in such cases, though bodies like LIC can be made accountable on the ground of public welfare objective, but what happens in case of private insurance? It is also correct to say that regulator generally do not make distinction while enforcing any regulations, and as on date I.R.D.A. has nothing on disability related issues in terms of regulation. I.R.D.A. is a growing regulator, but it is not wrong to say that they are not as receptive as the regulators like RBI and SEBI are. History proves that. I have two key suggestions here: 1. That whenever any disability related insurance is provided, then fixed additional charge if any, should be deducted at the time of processing claim, if the surveyor's report shows that the accident took place because of the disability as a main cause. And no additional premium should be put on the insured. This should only apply to accidents that too while walking on road, and in no other case. (I cannot think of any other circumstance which could lead to accident due to disability of any kind) 2. While assessing any claim, the disability expert should be accompanied with the surveyor so to see that there is no undue advantage being taken by the insurance company while processing the claim as regards the disability of the insured. I am open to suggestions. Regards, -- 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_acc essindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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.. Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessin dia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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.. 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in with the subject
Re: [AI] Views invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
@Sagar Bro: Your points are good, but in practice and in Indian conditions I don't know how far it would be practically possible to implement. @Harish Sir: I surely agree with the surveyor point, and as far as premium is concerned, I think its your experience which is saying so, and I hardly have knowledge of disability field, so I take it as it is for now. Whatever I was saying, I was saying from the commercial point of view. @Vedprakash Bro: Lucky you are, I must say! If you have disclosed your disability, and your agent haven't done anything different to save you from these issues. (But it is you! so, better we talk on phone about it smiles) At least I tried with HDFC Life, ICICI Prudential, and Bajaj, all of them asked for additional premium. But it was a long ago story, and I did not have seriousness to follow it up due to the reputation which insurance agents had created in my mind because of their appearances and differences in what they say and the policy conditions. But now having studied it as a subject, I know that it is not as rotten as a field which agents make you feel like sometimes. Whatever, now it is part of my planning, and kind of family requirement to get insurance. And I am serious about it, so lets see if there comes any refusal. Thanks for all the views, I am mostly done with my ground work now. -- 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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..
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
I agree with Harish and would like to add a few more points: In the first place, there is no reason why the factor of disability should be considered. A person's lifestyle, workplace is not considered is it. Why should such invasion of privacy be allowed in case of any disability. Most disabilities are invisible, some are easily visible. So, Even if risk is to be assessed, it will not be simply based on the single factor of disability. It also depends on accessibility of infrastructure, alternatives available to the person to accomplish the same task, government support, health services, the attitude of the person (some might be too adventurous others who simply don't move around much). All of these factors affect the risk involved. It is impossible to calculate it, and saying this or that disability means higher risk of x percentage is over simplification. There is one genuine case, for example if i have a heart problem and need some regular treatment. There is a higher chance of high medical bills and therefore medical claims. So any terms set by an insurer relating to diagnosed disorders and treatments directly as a result of those are probably the only genuine case where greater risk can be adjusted for. Sagar +91 99 30 271732 intouchid: 2010-SAGAR007 http://intch.me/2010-SAGAR007 The evil of the world is made possible only by the sanction you give it. - John Galt in Atlas Shrugged On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM, George Abraham geo...@eyeway.org wrote: Have you divulged the fact that you have an eye disorder? I refused to take an Aviva policy some time ago simply because they were charging me a disability premium. Regards, George -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Vedprakash Sent: 21 May 2013 20:14 To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. But private agencies do not charge any extra amount on account of blindness. I have policies from icici pru, hdfc and Bajaj. none of these charge any aditional fee. - Original Message - From: Amar Jain amarjain2...@gmail.com To: accessindia accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Well, both arguments seem to sustain with each other. While it is true that people with disability do not suffer accidents due to their disability in most of the cases, but at the same time it is also true that out of a contract of insurance, the only profit which an insurer makes is the premium which anyone pays provided that the event insured never takes place. In such a case, if the cause of the event is accident due to disability, then the risk of the insurer certainly increases. It is also true that each government is responsible to us for providing infrastructure, but in practicality, it does not exist today. So in such cases, though bodies like LIC can be made accountable on the ground of public welfare objective, but what happens in case of private insurance? It is also correct to say that regulator generally do not make distinction while enforcing any regulations, and as on date I.R.D.A. has nothing on disability related issues in terms of regulation. I.R.D.A. is a growing regulator, but it is not wrong to say that they are not as receptive as the regulators like RBI and SEBI are. History proves that. I have two key suggestions here: 1. That whenever any disability related insurance is provided, then fixed additional charge if any, should be deducted at the time of processing claim, if the surveyor's report shows that the accident took place because of the disability as a main cause. And no additional premium should be put on the insured. This should only apply to accidents that too while walking on road, and in no other case. (I cannot think of any other circumstance which could lead to accident due to disability of any kind) 2. While assessing any claim, the disability expert should be accompanied with the surveyor so to see that there is no undue advantage being taken by the insurance company while processing the claim as regards the disability of the insured. I am open to suggestions. Regards, -- 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_acc essindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
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 amarjain2...@gmail.com 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Hi All, The extra premium does have a logical basis, in terms of being at increased risk. Now it depends on the disability and the accident if such increased risk is valid or not. For example, crossing the road, might be considered more riskier if you are blind compared to if you are normally sighted. The tricky part is, this risk is difficult to calculate, and there is a very fine line between such calculation and discrimination. A possible solution could be that in cases where disability plays a major role in an injury the insurance company should be allowed to claim part or all of the money in turn from the owner of the premises where the accident happens. This makes sense because the discrimination or risk is actually due to lack of accessible/inclusive infrastructure. This would also push private builders and government to make infrastructure accessible. Sagar +91 99 30 271732 intouchid: 2010-SAGAR007 http://intch.me/2010-SAGAR007 The evil of the world is made possible only by the sanction you give it. - John Galt in Atlas Shrugged On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:12 PM, akhilesh akhil.akhi...@gmail.com wrote: Right Harish Sir, But as far as this judgment is concerned, it is not applicable to Private bodies. unjustified denial can surely be challenged on the well established grounds as you've mentioned. It is the responsibility of IRDA (I.R.D.A) that disable are not discriminated/charged extra premium on the grounds of their disabilities by private companies. @Amar: I'll go through the judgment and get back to you soon. On 5/20/13, Kotian, H P hpkot...@rbi.org.in wrote: Hi To put a non legal perspective, the government / regulators can issue guidelines which holds good for the entire industry which includes both public and private bodies. When RBI issues guidelines it does not differentiate between the private and PSu's. At any rate, the stats does not bring about any justification on applying additional premium. There is no basis for the additional premium which would fall into what can be termed as arbitrarily decision. Harish Kotian -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 20 May 2013 13:34 To: accessindia Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Dear Akhil Bhaiya, At last, I see someone's legal views. May be my drafting of second question needs to be revisited by myself to make it more clear. What I meant to ask, that considering that LIC and other such bodies being created for public welfare etc., the principles were being applied through this judgment keeping the social welfare objective in mind. But, would the principles hold good even in case of private insurers? As you rightly said, this judgment by itself will not be applicable to private bodies (unless the court sitting to interpret and stretches it to the private insurers keeping the public objective in mind), but that is a matter of construction, and as a general rule it will not be applicable. But can the principles of this judgment bind the other bodies too? Or, would the principles be restricted to Art. 12 bodies? Lets hope that we have more views in toto on this issue. Regards -- 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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.. 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Sagar The only objective way to deal with it is on the basis of stats. Statistics does not show that because of disability they are more prone to accidents. If that be the case, there is no justification to charge extra. The irony is that the able bodied are more accident prone and in reality they should give us discounts. Harish Kotian -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Sagar Sodah Sent: 20 May 2013 18:00 To: accessindia Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Hi All, The extra premium does have a logical basis, in terms of being at increased risk. Now it depends on the disability and the accident if such increased risk is valid or not. For example, crossing the road, might be considered more riskier if you are blind compared to if you are normally sighted. The tricky part is, this risk is difficult to calculate, and there is a very fine line between such calculation and discrimination. A possible solution could be that in cases where disability plays a major role in an injury the insurance company should be allowed to claim part or all of the money in turn from the owner of the premises where the accident happens. This makes sense because the discrimination or risk is actually due to lack of accessible/inclusive infrastructure. This would also push private builders and government to make infrastructure accessible. Sagar +91 99 30 271732 intouchid: 2010-SAGAR007 http://intch.me/2010-SAGAR007 The evil of the world is made possible only by the sanction you give it. - John Galt in Atlas Shrugged On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:12 PM, akhilesh akhil.akhi...@gmail.com wrote: Right Harish Sir, But as far as this judgment is concerned, it is not applicable to Private bodies. unjustified denial can surely be challenged on the well established grounds as you've mentioned. It is the responsibility of IRDA (I.R.D.A) that disable are not discriminated/charged extra premium on the grounds of their disabilities by private companies. @Amar: I'll go through the judgment and get back to you soon. On 5/20/13, Kotian, H P hpkot...@rbi.org.in wrote: Hi To put a non legal perspective, the government / regulators can issue guidelines which holds good for the entire industry which includes both public and private bodies. When RBI issues guidelines it does not differentiate between the private and PSu's. At any rate, the stats does not bring about any justification on applying additional premium. There is no basis for the additional premium which would fall into what can be termed as arbitrarily decision. Harish Kotian -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 20 May 2013 13:34 To: accessindia Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Dear Akhil Bhaiya, At last, I see someone's legal views. May be my drafting of second question needs to be revisited by myself to make it more clear. What I meant to ask, that considering that LIC and other such bodies being created for public welfare etc., the principles were being applied through this judgment keeping the social welfare objective in mind. But, would the principles hold good even in case of private insurers? As you rightly said, this judgment by itself will not be applicable to private bodies (unless the court sitting to interpret and stretches it to the private insurers keeping the public objective in mind), but that is a matter of construction, and as a general rule it will not be applicable. But can the principles of this judgment bind the other bodies too? Or, would the principles be restricted to Art. 12 bodies? Lets hope that we have more views in toto on this issue. Regards -- 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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.. Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on:
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Hi Sagar, Assuming that you're correct. However, It is the duty of the state/government to provide the safe environment to PWDs including crossing of roads. So one can not and in fact should not be allowed to take the advantage of its own wrong. On 5/21/13, Kotian, H P hpkot...@rbi.org.in wrote: Sagar The only objective way to deal with it is on the basis of stats. Statistics does not show that because of disability they are more prone to accidents. If that be the case, there is no justification to charge extra. The irony is that the able bodied are more accident prone and in reality they should give us discounts. Harish Kotian -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Sagar Sodah Sent: 20 May 2013 18:00 To: accessindia Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Hi All, The extra premium does have a logical basis, in terms of being at increased risk. Now it depends on the disability and the accident if such increased risk is valid or not. For example, crossing the road, might be considered more riskier if you are blind compared to if you are normally sighted. The tricky part is, this risk is difficult to calculate, and there is a very fine line between such calculation and discrimination. A possible solution could be that in cases where disability plays a major role in an injury the insurance company should be allowed to claim part or all of the money in turn from the owner of the premises where the accident happens. This makes sense because the discrimination or risk is actually due to lack of accessible/inclusive infrastructure. This would also push private builders and government to make infrastructure accessible. Sagar +91 99 30 271732 intouchid: 2010-SAGAR007 http://intch.me/2010-SAGAR007 The evil of the world is made possible only by the sanction you give it. - John Galt in Atlas Shrugged On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:12 PM, akhilesh akhil.akhi...@gmail.com wrote: Right Harish Sir, But as far as this judgment is concerned, it is not applicable to Private bodies. unjustified denial can surely be challenged on the well established grounds as you've mentioned. It is the responsibility of IRDA (I.R.D.A) that disable are not discriminated/charged extra premium on the grounds of their disabilities by private companies. @Amar: I'll go through the judgment and get back to you soon. On 5/20/13, Kotian, H P hpkot...@rbi.org.in wrote: Hi To put a non legal perspective, the government / regulators can issue guidelines which holds good for the entire industry which includes both public and private bodies. When RBI issues guidelines it does not differentiate between the private and PSu's. At any rate, the stats does not bring about any justification on applying additional premium. There is no basis for the additional premium which would fall into what can be termed as arbitrarily decision. Harish Kotian -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 20 May 2013 13:34 To: accessindia Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Dear Akhil Bhaiya, At last, I see someone's legal views. May be my drafting of second question needs to be revisited by myself to make it more clear. What I meant to ask, that considering that LIC and other such bodies being created for public welfare etc., the principles were being applied through this judgment keeping the social welfare objective in mind. But, would the principles hold good even in case of private insurers? As you rightly said, this judgment by itself will not be applicable to private bodies (unless the court sitting to interpret and stretches it to the private insurers keeping the public objective in mind), but that is a matter of construction, and as a general rule it will not be applicable. But can the principles of this judgment bind the other bodies too? Or, would the principles be restricted to Art. 12 bodies? Lets hope that we have more views in toto on this issue. Regards -- 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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,
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Well, both arguments seem to sustain with each other. While it is true that people with disability do not suffer accidents due to their disability in most of the cases, but at the same time it is also true that out of a contract of insurance, the only profit which an insurer makes is the premium which anyone pays provided that the event insured never takes place. In such a case, if the cause of the event is accident due to disability, then the risk of the insurer certainly increases. It is also true that each government is responsible to us for providing infrastructure, but in practicality, it does not exist today. So in such cases, though bodies like LIC can be made accountable on the ground of public welfare objective, but what happens in case of private insurance? It is also correct to say that regulator generally do not make distinction while enforcing any regulations, and as on date I.R.D.A. has nothing on disability related issues in terms of regulation. I.R.D.A. is a growing regulator, but it is not wrong to say that they are not as receptive as the regulators like RBI and SEBI are. History proves that. I have two key suggestions here: 1. That whenever any disability related insurance is provided, then fixed additional charge if any, should be deducted at the time of processing claim, if the surveyor's report shows that the accident took place because of the disability as a main cause. And no additional premium should be put on the insured. This should only apply to accidents that too while walking on road, and in no other case. (I cannot think of any other circumstance which could lead to accident due to disability of any kind) 2. While assessing any claim, the disability expert should be accompanied with the surveyor so to see that there is no undue advantage being taken by the insurance company while processing the claim as regards the disability of the insured. I am open to suggestions. Regards, -- 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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..
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Dear Amar Pl find my comments with HK. In a new line. Regards Harish Kotian -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 21 May 2013 16:02 To: accessindia Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Well, both arguments seem to sustain with each other. While it is true that people with disability do not suffer accidents due to their disability in most of the cases, but at the same time it is also true that out of a contract of insurance, the only profit which an insurer makes is the premium which anyone pays provided that the event insured never takes place. In such a case, if the cause of the event is accident due to disability, then the risk of the insurer certainly increases. It is also true that each government is responsible to us for providing infrastructure, but in practicality, it does not exist today. So in such cases, though bodies like LIC can be made accountable on the ground of public welfare objective, but what happens in case of private insurance? It is also correct to say that regulator generally do not make distinction while enforcing any regulations, and as on date I.R.D.A. has nothing on disability related issues in terms of regulation. I.R.D.A. is a growing regulator, but it is not wrong to say that they are not as receptive as the regulators like RBI and SEBI are. History proves that. I have two key suggestions here: 1. That whenever any disability related insurance is provided, then fixed additional charge if any, should be deducted at the time of processing claim, if the surveyor's report shows that the accident took place because of the disability as a main cause. And no additional premium should be put on the insured. This should only apply to accidents that too while walking on road, and in no other case. (I cannot think of any other circumstance which could lead to accident due to disability of any kind) HK. Internationally speaking, the disabled enjoy the first right to way. When a blind person steps on to the road the traffic has to stop hence, the onus of safety falls on the motorist. Hence, still no justification of charging extra premium. If the victim being blind was accompanied or without a cane, the motorist would have no means to know the victim is having visual disability, in this case an exception can be made in grounds of fairness. 2. While assessing any claim, the disability expert should be accompanied with the surveyor so to see that there is no undue advantage being taken by the insurance company while processing the claim as regards the disability of the insured. HK. Now, how do we define disability expert? Anyone can claim expertise and it would get wattered down. I am open to suggestions. Regards, -- 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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.. 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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..
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
I think you misunderstood me, Akhil. Anyway I agree with Harish that the first step would be using stats to figure out if it is riskier or not. If so, the risk is due to inaccessibility and not disability. So if the insurance company wants any remedy for that they should go to the owners of the premises where an incident occurs. But we are digressing from the topic, Amar must be swearing at me right now :) Sagar +91 99 30 271732 intouchid: 2010-SAGAR007 http://intch.me/2010-SAGAR007 The evil of the world is made possible only by the sanction you give it. - John Galt in Atlas Shrugged On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:14 PM, akhilesh akhil.akhi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sagar, Assuming that you're correct. However, It is the duty of the state/government to provide the safe environment to PWDs including crossing of roads. So one can not and in fact should not be allowed to take the advantage of its own wrong. On 5/21/13, Kotian, H P hpkot...@rbi.org.in wrote: Sagar The only objective way to deal with it is on the basis of stats. Statistics does not show that because of disability they are more prone to accidents. If that be the case, there is no justification to charge extra. The irony is that the able bodied are more accident prone and in reality they should give us discounts. Harish Kotian -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Sagar Sodah Sent: 20 May 2013 18:00 To: accessindia Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Hi All, The extra premium does have a logical basis, in terms of being at increased risk. Now it depends on the disability and the accident if such increased risk is valid or not. For example, crossing the road, might be considered more riskier if you are blind compared to if you are normally sighted. The tricky part is, this risk is difficult to calculate, and there is a very fine line between such calculation and discrimination. A possible solution could be that in cases where disability plays a major role in an injury the insurance company should be allowed to claim part or all of the money in turn from the owner of the premises where the accident happens. This makes sense because the discrimination or risk is actually due to lack of accessible/inclusive infrastructure. This would also push private builders and government to make infrastructure accessible. Sagar +91 99 30 271732 intouchid: 2010-SAGAR007 http://intch.me/2010-SAGAR007 The evil of the world is made possible only by the sanction you give it. - John Galt in Atlas Shrugged On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:12 PM, akhilesh akhil.akhi...@gmail.com wrote: Right Harish Sir, But as far as this judgment is concerned, it is not applicable to Private bodies. unjustified denial can surely be challenged on the well established grounds as you've mentioned. It is the responsibility of IRDA (I.R.D.A) that disable are not discriminated/charged extra premium on the grounds of their disabilities by private companies. @Amar: I'll go through the judgment and get back to you soon. On 5/20/13, Kotian, H P hpkot...@rbi.org.in wrote: Hi To put a non legal perspective, the government / regulators can issue guidelines which holds good for the entire industry which includes both public and private bodies. When RBI issues guidelines it does not differentiate between the private and PSu's. At any rate, the stats does not bring about any justification on applying additional premium. There is no basis for the additional premium which would fall into what can be termed as arbitrarily decision. Harish Kotian -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 20 May 2013 13:34 To: accessindia Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Dear Akhil Bhaiya, At last, I see someone's legal views. May be my drafting of second question needs to be revisited by myself to make it more clear. What I meant to ask, that considering that LIC and other such bodies being created for public welfare etc., the principles were being applied through this judgment keeping the social welfare objective in mind. But, would the principles hold good even in case of private insurers? As you rightly said, this judgment by itself will not be applicable to private bodies (unless the court sitting to interpret and stretches it to the private insurers keeping the public objective in mind), but that is a matter of construction, and as a general rule it will not be applicable. But can the principles of this judgment bind the other bodies too? Or, would the principles be restricted to
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
But private agencies do not charge any extra amount on account of blindness. I have policies from icici pru, hdfc and Bajaj. none of these charge any aditional fee. - Original Message - From: Amar Jain amarjain2...@gmail.com To: accessindia accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Well, both arguments seem to sustain with each other. While it is true that people with disability do not suffer accidents due to their disability in most of the cases, but at the same time it is also true that out of a contract of insurance, the only profit which an insurer makes is the premium which anyone pays provided that the event insured never takes place. In such a case, if the cause of the event is accident due to disability, then the risk of the insurer certainly increases. It is also true that each government is responsible to us for providing infrastructure, but in practicality, it does not exist today. So in such cases, though bodies like LIC can be made accountable on the ground of public welfare objective, but what happens in case of private insurance? It is also correct to say that regulator generally do not make distinction while enforcing any regulations, and as on date I.R.D.A. has nothing on disability related issues in terms of regulation. I.R.D.A. is a growing regulator, but it is not wrong to say that they are not as receptive as the regulators like RBI and SEBI are. History proves that. I have two key suggestions here: 1. That whenever any disability related insurance is provided, then fixed additional charge if any, should be deducted at the time of processing claim, if the surveyor's report shows that the accident took place because of the disability as a main cause. And no additional premium should be put on the insured. This should only apply to accidents that too while walking on road, and in no other case. (I cannot think of any other circumstance which could lead to accident due to disability of any kind) 2. While assessing any claim, the disability expert should be accompanied with the surveyor so to see that there is no undue advantage being taken by the insurance company while processing the claim as regards the disability of the insured. I am open to suggestions. Regards, -- 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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.. 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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..
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Dear Akhil Bhaiya, At last, I see someone's legal views. May be my drafting of second question needs to be revisited by myself to make it more clear. What I meant to ask, that considering that LIC and other such bodies being created for public welfare etc., the principles were being applied through this judgment keeping the social welfare objective in mind. But, would the principles hold good even in case of private insurers? As you rightly said, this judgment by itself will not be applicable to private bodies (unless the court sitting to interpret and stretches it to the private insurers keeping the public objective in mind), but that is a matter of construction, and as a general rule it will not be applicable. But can the principles of this judgment bind the other bodies too? Or, would the principles be restricted to Art. 12 bodies? Lets hope that we have more views in toto on this issue. Regards -- 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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..
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Hi To put a non legal perspective, the government / regulators can issue guidelines which holds good for the entire industry which includes both public and private bodies. When RBI issues guidelines it does not differentiate between the private and PSu's. At any rate, the stats does not bring about any justification on applying additional premium. There is no basis for the additional premium which would fall into what can be termed as arbitrarily decision. Harish Kotian -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 20 May 2013 13:34 To: accessindia Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Dear Akhil Bhaiya, At last, I see someone's legal views. May be my drafting of second question needs to be revisited by myself to make it more clear. What I meant to ask, that considering that LIC and other such bodies being created for public welfare etc., the principles were being applied through this judgment keeping the social welfare objective in mind. But, would the principles hold good even in case of private insurers? As you rightly said, this judgment by itself will not be applicable to private bodies (unless the court sitting to interpret and stretches it to the private insurers keeping the public objective in mind), but that is a matter of construction, and as a general rule it will not be applicable. But can the principles of this judgment bind the other bodies too? Or, would the principles be restricted to Art. 12 bodies? Lets hope that we have more views in toto on this issue. Regards -- 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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.. 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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..
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Right Harish Sir, But as far as this judgment is concerned, it is not applicable to Private bodies. unjustified denial can surely be challenged on the well established grounds as you've mentioned. It is the responsibility of IRDA (I.R.D.A) that disable are not discriminated/charged extra premium on the grounds of their disabilities by private companies. @Amar: I'll go through the judgment and get back to you soon. On 5/20/13, Kotian, H P hpkot...@rbi.org.in wrote: Hi To put a non legal perspective, the government / regulators can issue guidelines which holds good for the entire industry which includes both public and private bodies. When RBI issues guidelines it does not differentiate between the private and PSu's. At any rate, the stats does not bring about any justification on applying additional premium. There is no basis for the additional premium which would fall into what can be termed as arbitrarily decision. Harish Kotian -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 20 May 2013 13:34 To: accessindia Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Dear Akhil Bhaiya, At last, I see someone's legal views. May be my drafting of second question needs to be revisited by myself to make it more clear. What I meant to ask, that considering that LIC and other such bodies being created for public welfare etc., the principles were being applied through this judgment keeping the social welfare objective in mind. But, would the principles hold good even in case of private insurers? As you rightly said, this judgment by itself will not be applicable to private bodies (unless the court sitting to interpret and stretches it to the private insurers keeping the public objective in mind), but that is a matter of construction, and as a general rule it will not be applicable. But can the principles of this judgment bind the other bodies too? Or, would the principles be restricted to Art. 12 bodies? Lets hope that we have more views in toto on this issue. Regards -- 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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.. 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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.. -- Akhilesh Dahiya, Advocate. Mobile: +91 9818798780 Email: akhil.akhi...@gmail.com New Delhi 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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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..
[AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
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/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in 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..
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
With reference to my knowledge, we don't have to pay any extra premium on life insurance if the policy is beginning from or after 2008. There is a letter signed by LIC for NAB to support this. Pasting below the content of the letter converted by OCR. Hope this helps. Life Insurance Corporation Actuarial department, Central Office,YOGAKSHEMA, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021. Tel:022-66598370/22852174,Fax:022-22028321 Ref: Actuarial /PS 14th July, 2007 Shri Ketan Kothari Asst.Director National Association for the Blind Mulla House 51, Mahatma Gandhi Road Mumbai 400 023 Dear Sir, Re: Insurance cover to blind persons We thank you for your letter dated 18th May, 2007 enclosing a copy of your earlier dated 13th March, 2007. Regarding the points raised in your enclosed letter we have to inform you as under: 1. It is not correct that we do not allow some of our plans such as Jeevan Anand, Jeevan Chhaya etc.to the blind persons. We do not have any restriction with regard to plan and term for the insurance cover. The only requirement is that the person to be insured should be gainfully employed which is one of our basic requirement for all whether they are disabled or not disabled. 2. It is also incorrect that Janashree Bima Yojana is not available to the blind persons. It is a social security group insurance scheme and provides insurance protection to persons below poverty line and marginally above poverty line provided they are members of the approved occupational/vocational groups. 3. It is also not correct that we charge extra premium while offering insurance cover to the blind persons. We hope the above clarification will serve the purpose. If you have any further points, please write to us. Thanking you again, Yours faithfully, Executive Director (ACTL) Best Regards, Sushmeetha B. Bubna │ Founder Director Voice Vision 103, Synthofine Estate,' A'- Wing, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400 063. Work Phone: +91 22 4040 │ Fax: +91 22 40400123 │ Hand Phone: +91 9820566010 Email: sushmee...@voicevision.in │ Web: www.voicevision.in Facebook www.facebook.com/voicevisionfans Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful. -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 19 May 2013 11:47 To: accessindia Cc: amarjain2...@gmail.com Subject: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. 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
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Dear Madam, If possible, please upload the PDF version of the letter to any of the file-sharing sites. Thanks and regards. On 5/19/13, Sushmeetha sushmee...@voicevision.in wrote: With reference to my knowledge, we don't have to pay any extra premium on life insurance if the policy is beginning from or after 2008. There is a letter signed by LIC for NAB to support this. Pasting below the content of the letter converted by OCR. Hope this helps. Life Insurance Corporation Actuarial department, Central Office,YOGAKSHEMA, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021. Tel:022-66598370/22852174,Fax:022-22028321 Ref: Actuarial /PS 14th July, 2007 Shri Ketan Kothari Asst.Director National Association for the Blind Mulla House 51, Mahatma Gandhi Road Mumbai 400 023 Dear Sir, Re: Insurance cover to blind persons We thank you for your letter dated 18th May, 2007 enclosing a copy of your earlier dated 13th March, 2007. Regarding the points raised in your enclosed letter we have to inform you as under: 1.It is not correct that we do not allow some of our plans such as Jeevan Anand, Jeevan Chhaya etc.to the blind persons. We do not have any restriction with regard to plan and term for the insurance cover. The only requirement is that the person to be insured should be gainfully employed which is one of our basic requirement for all whether they are disabled or not disabled. 2.It is also incorrect that Janashree Bima Yojana is not available to the blind persons. It is a social security group insurance scheme and provides insurance protection to persons below poverty line and marginally above poverty line provided they are members of the approved occupational/vocational groups. 3.It is also not correct that we charge extra premium while offering insurance cover to the blind persons. We hope the above clarification will serve the purpose. If you have any further points, please write to us. Thanking you again, Yours faithfully, Executive Director (ACTL) Best Regards, Sushmeetha B. Bubna │ Founder Director Voice Vision 103, Synthofine Estate,' A'- Wing, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400 063. Work Phone: +91 22 4040 │ Fax: +91 22 40400123 │ Hand Phone: +91 9820566010 Email: sushmee...@voicevision.in │ Web: www.voicevision.in Facebook www.facebook.com/voicevisionfans Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful. -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 19 May 2013 11:47 To: accessindia Cc: amarjain2...@gmail.com Subject: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. 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.
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
hi!,requesting the same. With best regards, Priyesh.C.U, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, p.m Government College Chalakudy, Thrissur District, Kerala PH.d Scholar, School of International Relations Politics, M.G University, Kottayam. Mobile: 09846141225 Email I D: priyesh...@gmail.com Skype I D: priyesh.cu Facebook: priyesh cu Follow me on Twitter: priyeshcu Whenever there is Decline of righteousness, And rise of unrighteousness, I incarnate myself To protect the virtuous And to destroy the wicked, From Age to Age. Geeta. - Original Message - From: Kakarla Nageswaraiah nageswara1...@gmail.com To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Dear Madam, If possible, please upload the PDF version of the letter to any of the file-sharing sites. Thanks and regards. On 5/19/13, Sushmeetha sushmee...@voicevision.in wrote: With reference to my knowledge, we don't have to pay any extra premium on life insurance if the policy is beginning from or after 2008. There is a letter signed by LIC for NAB to support this. Pasting below the content of the letter converted by OCR. Hope this helps. Life Insurance Corporation Actuarial department, Central Office,YOGAKSHEMA, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021. Tel:022-66598370/22852174,Fax:022-22028321 Ref: Actuarial /PS 14th July, 2007 Shri Ketan Kothari Asst.Director National Association for the Blind Mulla House 51, Mahatma Gandhi Road Mumbai 400 023 Dear Sir, Re: Insurance cover to blind persons We thank you for your letter dated 18th May, 2007 enclosing a copy of your earlier dated 13th March, 2007. Regarding the points raised in your enclosed letter we have to inform you as under: 1. It is not correct that we do not allow some of our plans such as Jeevan Anand, Jeevan Chhaya etc.to the blind persons. We do not have any restriction with regard to plan and term for the insurance cover. The only requirement is that the person to be insured should be gainfully employed which is one of our basic requirement for all whether they are disabled or not disabled. 2. It is also incorrect that Janashree Bima Yojana is not available to the blind persons. It is a social security group insurance scheme and provides insurance protection to persons below poverty line and marginally above poverty line provided they are members of the approved occupational/vocational groups. 3. It is also not correct that we charge extra premium while offering insurance cover to the blind persons. We hope the above clarification will serve the purpose. If you have any further points, please write to us. Thanking you again, Yours faithfully, Executive Director (ACTL) Best Regards, Sushmeetha B. Bubna │ Founder Director Voice Vision 103, Synthofine Estate,' A'- Wing, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400 063. Work Phone: +91 22 4040 │ Fax: +91 22 40400123 │ Hand Phone: +91 9820566010 Email: sushmee...@voicevision.in │ Web: www.voicevision.in Facebook www.facebook.com/voicevisionfans Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful. -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 19 May 2013 11:47 To: accessindia Cc: amarjain2...@gmail.com Subject: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. 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
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Please share the link to download the circular. On 19/05/2013, Priyesh.C.U priyesh...@gmail.com wrote: hi!,requesting the same. With best regards, Priyesh.C.U, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, p.m Government College Chalakudy, Thrissur District, Kerala PH.d Scholar, School of International Relations Politics, M.G University, Kottayam. Mobile: 09846141225 Email I D: priyesh...@gmail.com Skype I D: priyesh.cu Facebook: priyesh cu Follow me on Twitter: priyeshcu Whenever there is Decline of righteousness, And rise of unrighteousness, I incarnate myself To protect the virtuous And to destroy the wicked, From Age to Age. Geeta. - Original Message - From: Kakarla Nageswaraiah nageswara1...@gmail.com To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Dear Madam, If possible, please upload the PDF version of the letter to any of the file-sharing sites. Thanks and regards. On 5/19/13, Sushmeetha sushmee...@voicevision.in wrote: With reference to my knowledge, we don't have to pay any extra premium on life insurance if the policy is beginning from or after 2008. There is a letter signed by LIC for NAB to support this. Pasting below the content of the letter converted by OCR. Hope this helps. Life Insurance Corporation Actuarial department, Central Office,YOGAKSHEMA, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021. Tel:022-66598370/22852174,Fax:022-22028321 Ref: Actuarial /PS 14th July, 2007 Shri Ketan Kothari Asst.Director National Association for the Blind Mulla House 51, Mahatma Gandhi Road Mumbai 400 023 Dear Sir, Re: Insurance cover to blind persons We thank you for your letter dated 18th May, 2007 enclosing a copy of your earlier dated 13th March, 2007. Regarding the points raised in your enclosed letter we have to inform you as under: 1. It is not correct that we do not allow some of our plans such as Jeevan Anand, Jeevan Chhaya etc.to the blind persons. We do not have any restriction with regard to plan and term for the insurance cover. The only requirement is that the person to be insured should be gainfully employed which is one of our basic requirement for all whether they are disabled or not disabled. 2. It is also incorrect that Janashree Bima Yojana is not available to the blind persons. It is a social security group insurance scheme and provides insurance protection to persons below poverty line and marginally above poverty line provided they are members of the approved occupational/vocational groups. 3. It is also not correct that we charge extra premium while offering insurance cover to the blind persons. We hope the above clarification will serve the purpose. If you have any further points, please write to us. Thanking you again, Yours faithfully, Executive Director (ACTL) Best Regards, Sushmeetha B. Bubna │ Founder Director Voice Vision 103, Synthofine Estate,' A'- Wing, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400 063. Work Phone: +91 22 4040 │ Fax: +91 22 40400123 │ Hand Phone: +91 9820566010 Email: sushmee...@voicevision.in │ Web: www.voicevision.in Facebook www.facebook.com/voicevisionfans Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful. -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 19 May 2013 11:47 To: accessindia Cc: amarjain2...@gmail.com Subject: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. 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
Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities.
Dear Amar, 1. No doubt that the Judgment was passed in response of Writ petition, but it shall be applicable for every visually-impaired concerned. If I remember correctly, it was treated as a PIL as well. However, every wording of the ratio needs to be studied in a very careful manner. Therefore, I see no reasons as to why the judgment should not be applicable for all visually-impaired. 2. With regard to the second issue, I don’t think that this ruling applies to private bodies. As far as I know, and you’re also well aware, that writ of mandamus and certiorari can not be passed against private persons. 3. 3rd looks to complex to me and hence I’d left to other experts. 4. I think your observations are correct on this. 5. Well made suggestion. On 5/20/13, giri prasad mgiriprasadma...@gmail.com wrote: Please share the link to download the circular. On 19/05/2013, Priyesh.C.U priyesh...@gmail.com wrote: hi!,requesting the same. With best regards, Priyesh.C.U, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, p.m Government College Chalakudy, Thrissur District, Kerala PH.d Scholar, School of International Relations Politics, M.G University, Kottayam. Mobile: 09846141225 Email I D: priyesh...@gmail.com Skype I D: priyesh.cu Facebook: priyesh cu Follow me on Twitter: priyeshcu Whenever there is Decline of righteousness, And rise of unrighteousness, I incarnate myself To protect the virtuous And to destroy the wicked, From Age to Age. Geeta. - Original Message - From: Kakarla Nageswaraiah nageswara1...@gmail.com To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. Dear Madam, If possible, please upload the PDF version of the letter to any of the file-sharing sites. Thanks and regards. On 5/19/13, Sushmeetha sushmee...@voicevision.in wrote: With reference to my knowledge, we don't have to pay any extra premium on life insurance if the policy is beginning from or after 2008. There is a letter signed by LIC for NAB to support this. Pasting below the content of the letter converted by OCR. Hope this helps. Life Insurance Corporation Actuarial department, Central Office,YOGAKSHEMA, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021. Tel:022-66598370/22852174,Fax:022-22028321 Ref: Actuarial /PS 14th July, 2007 Shri Ketan Kothari Asst.Director National Association for the Blind Mulla House 51, Mahatma Gandhi Road Mumbai 400 023 Dear Sir, Re: Insurance cover to blind persons We thank you for your letter dated 18th May, 2007 enclosing a copy of your earlier dated 13th March, 2007. Regarding the points raised in your enclosed letter we have to inform you as under: 1. It is not correct that we do not allow some of our plans such as Jeevan Anand, Jeevan Chhaya etc.to the blind persons. We do not have any restriction with regard to plan and term for the insurance cover. The only requirement is that the person to be insured should be gainfully employed which is one of our basic requirement for all whether they are disabled or not disabled. 2. It is also incorrect that Janashree Bima Yojana is not available to the blind persons. It is a social security group insurance scheme and provides insurance protection to persons below poverty line and marginally above poverty line provided they are members of the approved occupational/vocational groups. 3. It is also not correct that we charge extra premium while offering insurance cover to the blind persons. We hope the above clarification will serve the purpose. If you have any further points, please write to us. Thanking you again, Yours faithfully, Executive Director (ACTL) Best Regards, Sushmeetha B. Bubna │ Founder Director Voice Vision 103, Synthofine Estate,' A'- Wing, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400 063. Work Phone: +91 22 4040 │ Fax: +91 22 40400123 │ Hand Phone: +91 9820566010 Email: sushmee...@voicevision.in │ Web: www.voicevision.in Facebook www.facebook.com/voicevisionfans Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful. -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Amar Jain Sent: 19 May 2013 11:47 To: accessindia Cc: amarjain2...@gmail.com Subject: [AI] Views Invited: Legal issues in an insurance contract for people with disabilities. 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
