Top court introduces compensation for homemaker deaths
The Supreme Court recognised “loss of domestic care” as a separate head of compensation in motor accident cases involving the death of a homemaker, holding that the economic value of domestic and caregiving work performed by women has long been undervalued.
To address this gap, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh directed that in cases involving the death of a homemaker, tribunals and courts should award a composite sum under the new head of “loss of domestic care”. The amount has been fixed at Rs. 30,000 per month, subject to a cumulative 10 per cent increase every three years.
The Bench delivered the ruling while enhancing compensation in a 2001 accident case from Haryana, where a homemaker died in a road accident.
On questions related to the value of her work, the court observed that the contribution of a homemaker extends far beyond conventional notions of income. “When in Indian society, the ‘woman of the house’ is called the ‘grihaswamint’, then why are we still groping in the dark,” it said.
According to the court, the new head of “loss of domestic care” covers three distinct losses: The homemakers contribution of the household; the loss of maternal support to children; and the loss of spousal or filial support suffered by the husband and parents.
Insurer must prove pre-existing ailment before denying claim
Navneet Surekha, working with PricewaterhouseCoopers Service Delivery Centre Kolkata, was deputed on assignment to Dallas, USA, for three months. The employer had obtained an “Overseas Travel Policy – Corporate” from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, which covered medical expenses, evacuation and repatriation up to $500,000, and hospitalisation allowance of $25 per day, limited to a maximum of $150.
Surekha travelled to Dallas on July 10, 2017. While completing the joining formalities on July 13, 2017, he suddenly developed symptoms of illness. On July 14, 2017, his condition deteriorated, and he was admitted to Baylor University Medical Centre. Doctors diagnosed him to be suffering from acute pancreatitis, along with multiple complications, including diabetic ketoacidosis, acute respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest. He remained hospitalised for about 55 days, including a prolonged stay in the Intensive Care Unit. He remained hospitalised till September 6, 2017.
The insurer was immediately informed about the hospitalisation. After discharge Surekha lodged a claim for the treatment, supported by the hospital bill of $328,038. The insurer sought medical records to process the claim. Even though Surekha had no prior history of diabetes, and doctors diagnosed the medical condition only during hospitalisation, the insurer repudiated the claim on the assumption that diabetes was pre-existing and the complications were consequential.
Since the insurer repudiated the claim, the employer had to arrange finance through its global arrangements with International SOS Assistance, Inc., to clear the hospital dues. Surekha and the employer filed a joint complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, alleging deficiency in service on the insurer’s part.
