Disputes between contracting parties do come up in commercial world in terms of interpretations of words, clauses, duties, obligations, etc. particularly when one of the contracting parties gets affected financially which is triggered by a perceived nonperformance by the other party. Insurance policies are no exception.
General Insurance policies, the long period of its evolution notwithstanding, are exposed to such claims and counter claims. This is because the policies are elaborate documents with recitals, schedules, terms, conditions, covers, exclusions, excesses, warranties, assignments, endorsements full of legal, quasi legal, technical words and clauses.
The policies have arbitration condition which can be invoked in case of disputes in quantum only and not disputes on cover and liability. Many times, such disputes are agitated in Consumer Courts and Ombudsman, sometime in civil courts.
The recent Delhi High Court judgement on the fundamental and crucial issue of exclusion of Genetic Disorder from the health insurance policy is such an issue. This has generated a lot of discussions and has engaged IRDAI to rethink and formulate regulations afresh.
THE CASE:
Mr. Jai Prakash Tayal had insured himself and himself and his family members under a Mediclaim insurance policy with National Insurance Company since 2002 for sum insured of Rs 5 lakh each continuously. He renewed the same with United India Insurance Co. w.e.f. 2006 till.2012. He suffered from HOCM, Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy, a disease of unexplained thickening of heart wall, got medical treatment in Fortis Hospital and preferred a claim with the insurer. The insurer enquired with the treating doctor of Fortis Hospital and found on record that HOCM was a genetic disorder which falls under the clear exclusion 4.17ie genetic disorder and stem cell implant surgery of the policy in force and communicated repudiation of the claim. The claimant agitated against the decision in the civil court on the following grounds:
- The insurer had earlier paid two separate claims in two different periods of policies on the same disease and now could not deny the same which is arbitrary and illegal
- The earlier policies had no such wordings in exclusion like Genetic Disorder and inserting a new clause in the renewed policy is” criminal breach of trust”
- The renewal policy exclusion was not notified to the insured and his consent was not taken.
The insurer argued that the exclusion is inherent and express in the policy which is common to all health insurance policies in India and hence legal. More over a policy being a legal contract, the insurer is justified in repudiating the claim on the strength of the exclusion 4.17
TRIAL COURT AWARD:
The trial court dwelt upon on the dispute on the exclusion and held that the exclusion was discriminatory and not notified to the insured and his consent not taken as this became a new insertion though policies were renewed without gap. That the same insurer had admitted the claim and indemnified the insured for the same disease twice earlier makes it illegal to exclude the same on genetic disorder exclusion in subsequent renewals.
The insurer, United India Insurance Company, appealed against the trial court award in Delhi High Court and their Counsel argued that Genetic Disorder exclusion under the existing policy was as per IRDAI guidelines common to all health insurance policies and the contract of insurance was sacrosanct and should not be over ruled.
HIGH COURT AWARD:
Delhi High Court dwelt upon the implications of genetic disease exclusion vis-a-vis the citizens’ fundamental rights conferred by the Indian Constitution as under:
Article 14 – Right to equality before law and to equal protection of law- The court held that denying health insurance on the ground of genetic predisposition is discriminatory and amounts to unequal treatment to a citizen as against other citizens and thus violates this article of fundamental right.
Article 21– Right to Life- This is the most important fundamental right of a citizen which assumes significance in terms leading a secured, healthy and dignified life. Health is fundamental to a good life and court held that no one can be denied this right to health.
Important Observation of the High Court:
- IRDAI did not clearly define the exclusion in unambiguous terms and this leaves a big lacuna in the policy. This is too” broad, exclusionary and discriminatory.
- Genetic diseases can be attributed to many common disorders like BP, Diabetes and heart ailments and a large chunk of population suffers from these diseases, does this mean a major part of the population shall be deprived of health insurance?
- Whether a disease can be solely related to genetic disorder? Since it is not, how can this be an exclusion? A genetic disorder may be recessionary or dominant.
- High Court held that this is not” merely a contractual issue but spills into broader canvas of right to health under Art. 21 of constitution” and contrary to Public Policy.
While dismissing the appeal and confirming the trial court award in favor of the insured the High Court directed the IRDAI to seriously look into the exclusion, legality, clarity and precision and to ensure that these are corrected to ensure that the fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 21 are not contravened.
IRDAI ACTION:
IRDAI, in conformity with the High Court direction, immediately issued circular to all insurers to immediately discontinue application of this exclusion in current or future policies and claims till further order which now remains in force.
In the meantime, IRDAI has constituted a committee to comprehensively examine the exclusions as a whole including genetic disorder. In the light of the developments in new research, treatment, management of various diseases and the new procedures, day care protocols, the Committee shall come out with scientific, legal, simplified conditions and exclusions including standardized wordings with no scope for various interpretations.
