While hearing a petition filed by a parent seeking insurance coverage for their hearing-impaired son, the Delhi High Court ordered the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDAI) to order a product for persons with hearing impairments and implants. asked to consider how to design
In another case, Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors, one of Prathiba Singh Judges convened a meeting of all insurers in the IRDAI to discuss health insurance coverage. Passed directives to guarantee products that Designed for disabled people.
In the current hearing, the High Court ordered IRDAI by order of 25 January to consider the facts of the case at a conference of insurance companies, if not already held, as directed in Saurabh Shukla’s case. , instructed them to consider how the product will be used. It can be designed for people who are deaf or have implants. “IRDAI shall consider existing policies and guidelines as applicable to persons with disabilities when presenting its position to the court,” it ordered.
The court also said that the challenges that nature poses to people with disabilities should be mitigated by society as a whole, which must lend a helping hand and respond to their needs.
HC heard a petition filed by a couple challenging the denial of health insurance for their minor son who suffers from binaural hearing loss. Their son was prescribed a cochlear implant and the parents implanted the same cochlear implant into his minor son on July 22, 2020 at his own expense.
As the parents had family insurance that included their eldest daughter, they sought renewal through an application on June 15, 2020 to include their son as a co-insured after disclosing their son’s condition. However, the insurer Tata AIG General Insurance Company declined to issue the insurance on June 19, 2020, on the grounds that such disability would not be covered by its underwriting policy.
Parents said the company’s actions were completely discriminatory against persons with disabilities, including children. Relying claims that insurers can set certain exclusions. However, this is only provided that no insurance is provided even after imposing an additional premium on the premium.
Tata AIG said in its response on the matter that the insurer is in a position to issue insurance but has taken a “clear position” to permanently exclude pre-existing conditions for minor children. In this regard, the court said: Same as Defendant No. 1 (Tata AIG).”
Judge Singh held a “prima facie evidence” opinion that Tata AIG’s conduct “contradicted the provisions in favor of persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.”
The court held that Tata AIG was part of a “responsible and respected group of companies” and that “people with disabilities were expected to be treated with compassion.” “In general, society also has obligations to persons with disabilities and should consider and provide specific disability-covering products for such persons,” the HC ruled. Did.
In addition, direct the minor juvenile case to be escalated to senior management at Tata AIG to consider, where appropriate, how persons with disabilities should be treated by insurance companies. The court directed both Tata AIG and IRDAI to file status reports containing “meeting minutes and proposals for fair treatment of persons with disabilities.”
The court also notified the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and requested a response within six weeks.
