Bombay High Court Ruling: Mediclaim Policy Amount Can't Be Deducted from Motor Accident Compensation

New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): Bombay High Court has given a big decision regarding the amount of Mediclaim policy. Bombay High Court has said in its decision that the amount received by a person under Mediclaim policy cannot be deducted from the amount of compensation payable to the claimant for medical expenses under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The full bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar, Milind Jadhav and Gauri Godse said in its decision that the amount received under Mediclaim policy is received by the claimant in view of the agreement made with the insurance company.

In our view, deduction of any amount received by the claimant under the mediclaim policy would not be admissible, the bench ruled. The issue was referred to the full bench after various single and division benches gave different views. Citing judgments passed by the Supreme Court, the full bench said that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal not only has the right but also the duty to award reasonable compensation. It said that the amount received on account of insurance is due to the contractual obligations entered into by the insured with the company. After the premium was paid, it was clear that the beneficiary amount would come to the claimant's share either on maturity of the policy or on death, irrespective of the manner of death. The court said that the culprit cannot take advantage of the farsighted and wise financial investment made by the deceased. This is the settled position of law. The full bench was hearing an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Limited against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which ordered monetary compensation in addition to medical expenses.

Insurance company's claim

The insurance company claimed that medical expenses are also covered under the sum insured received as part of the mediclaim policy. The company said that it would be double compensation. Advocate Gautam Ankhad, appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court, argued that the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act relating to medical expenses needs to be interpreted in favour of the claimant/victim as it is a welfare law. He further said that the insurer has not suffered any loss as it has received premium from the insured.