An innocuous redefinition of portability has ramifications for the insured interested in porting from an existing mediclaim product to a new innovative product launched by the same insurer
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) released amendments to guidelines on ‘standardisation in health insurance’, which redefines portability. The circular dated 3 July 2013, says, “Portability means transfer by an individual health insurance policyholder (including family cover) of the credit gained for pre-existing conditions and time-bound exclusions if he/she chooses to switch from one insurer to another.” The existing definition had additional words that have been deleted – “...or from one plan to another plan of the same insurer, provided the previous policy has been maintained without any break.” What does this mean?
Before 1 October 2011, if you needed to move to a new health insurance company, you would have to become a new customer for them and lose all the benefits that your existing health insurance policy might have accumulated for pre-existing diseases (PED) and waiting periods for specific procedures. With portability, mediclaim PED and time bound exclusions for specific procedures will be given credit for the time period spent with existing health insurance product. Till now, portability was allowed within the same insurer.
Porting from existing mediclaim product to new innovative mediclaim from same insurance company, from family floater to individual mediclaim and group to individual product within the same insurance company was allowed. The portability guidelines clearly state that individual member, including the family members covered under any group policy shall have the right to migrate to an individual policy or a family floater with the same insurer.
If so, the new innocuous looking redefinition of portability is a game changer. As such, hapless senior citizens and those with PED are denied porting by the new insurance company under the “right to underwrite”. Please read Moneylife cover story Switching your Mediclaim?to understand how insurance companies are selectively allowing porting. Porting for young and healthy may be embraced with open arms by insurance companies, but for old or unhealthy it is just an illusion due to strict medical underwriting by many private insurers. It is a great scheme on paper, but difficult to implement in reality.
An existing insurance company has a relationship with the insured and may find awkward to deny porting to other products from same company. There will be some percent of policyholders filing claims who are renewed by the insurer, much against its own wishes. With the portability redefinition, the existing insurer is relieved from being answerable to allow porting to new product. The new insurer too will deny porting for consumers with claims history and hence these policyholders will be stuck to not just same insurer, but even to the same product.
Group policy may be discontinued by employer or no longer be applicable due to retirement; porting will now be denied to individual mediclaim policy of same insurer. Family floater may have maximum age limit and these policyholders will not be allowed to port to individual mediclaim of same insurer. IRDA move is surely not in consumer interest; insurance companies will be a happy camper.
Moneylife had emailed to several insurance companies to get their feedback, but there were only three responses till the time of writing. As of now, the redefined portability seems to be given benefit of doubt by the insurance industry respondents. We are not sure how long it will continue as the insurance company will start seeing the benefit of using the new definition of portability to prevent porting a policyholder within the company products on a case to case basis.
M Ravinder, national head - rural, accident & health, Tata AIG General Insurance, says, “Portability will be allowed within the same insurer to the extent that you can migrate from a group policy to an individual health insurance policy or a family floater policy. However you cannot move from a group policy of one insurer to a retail policy of another insurer. Also, the industry, so far, has not experienced as many portability cases or migration cases as expected.”
According to Dr Amarnath Ananthanarayanan, CEO and MD, Bharti AXA General Insurance, "The IRDA has recently come out with a corrigendum to the portability guidelines whereby it appears that the definition of portability has been restricted to mean transfer of retail policies from one insurer to another. A plain reading of the revised condition leads to the conclusion that portability does not apply to changes in plan with the same insurer. However, we are seeking clarification from IRDA on this aspect as we are of the opinion that logically, the benefits in respect of pre-existing condition and time bound exclusions should always be allowed to the insured if he/she chooses to shift from one plan to another of the same insurer. We shall formulate our future course of action once we receive clarification from the regulator."
According to Mukesh Kumar, head strategy and marketing, “We are allowing portability from our group to an individual policy however due to specific reasons only, like change of job or retirement. For old discontinued products (if any) we may extend a continuity benefits subject to terms and conditions. We are offering continuity from family floater to individual if the customer requests for a change; subject to underwriting and product terms and conditions.”
According to Arvind Laddha, CEO, Vantage Insurance Brokers Pvt Ltd, “Yes, the circular does seem to suggest that portability refers to movement from one insurer to another. However, my sense is that the intent is not to prevent movement from group to individual policy or from one product of the insurer to another, but just clarify that this term refers to movement from one insurer to another. Insurers should be able to offer similar benefits of movement from one plan to another offered by them, not withstanding this clarification.”
Yashish Dahiya, CEO, Policybazaar.com, says, “It must be a miss. I am sure there will be a clarification as customers should obviously get the benefit of new product innovation by insurers, else companies with the largest portfolios have most to lose. They have the right to innovate and offer their existing customers the benefits of that innovation.”
A full bench comprising central information commissioners will conduct a hearing on the issue of BCCI and 29 other cricket associations coming under the RTI, based on a complaint filed by an RTI activist
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) continues to hold on to a court judgment, which has salvaged it from coming under the transparency law. However, a tenacious activist’s fight has resulted in a full bench of Central Information Commission (CIC) directing BCCI, Cricket Control of India (CCI) and 28 other cricket associations in the country to submit ‘written representation’ of various government funding they receive. These associations are also asked to be present before the full bench of the CIC for a hearing on the evening of 25th and 26 July 2013.
In a notice sent to BCCI, CCI and 28 other cricket bodies the CIC has “directed to attend the hearing either personally or through an authorised representative at the appointed date and time (4pm on 25th and 26 July) and to send written representation before the Commission on various facilities these cricket bodies enjoy from the central and state governments.”
This is a sequel to the complaint sent by Right to Information (RTI) activist and senior citizen Madhu Agrawal, after she failed to get information from the respective cricket bodies. She had sought “complete and detailed information together with relevant documents/ file notings/ correspondence on the use of land, stadiums, tax exemption and security expenses paid for by the government for matches played by cricket bodies.’’ Her RTI petition dated 6 June 2013, came up for quick hearing as she is a senior citizen.
As per the RTI Act, any private organization which has ‘substantial’ funding from the government is public authority under RTI. However, BCCI relied on a Supreme Court judgment of Justice Santosh Hegde, which cleared it from being a public body. However, Justice Hegde in a recent interview to a national daily admitted that BCCI has been taking undue advantage of this judgment and that it should come under RTI. That is when Agrawal filed her petition.
The BCCI, CCI and 28 other cricket associations across India have been directed by the CIC, to send their written representation before the commission containing the following information:
1. Land and buildings including the stadiums allotted by the state government concerned (size in acres/square metres)
2. Annual rent being paid by State Cricket Association
3. Copies of lease deeds
4. Estimated market rentals
5. Income tax exemption, if any, for the last five years, that is between 2007 and 2012
6. Customs duty exemption if any, for the last five years, that is, between 2007 and 2012
7. Entertainment tax exemption, if any, for the last five years, that is, between 2007 and 2012
8. Security expenses incurred by state governments for organising cricket matches for the last five years that is between 2007 and 2012
9. Any other information
States petitioner Madhu Agrawal, “It refers to Justice Santosh Hegde clearing the air on his Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Zee Telefilms whereby the now-retired judge has cleared that BCCI has been misinterpreting and misusing his judgment for claiming itself from outside purview of RTI Act. He has rightly analysed that the way BCCI is misusing his judgment, then ‘reservation’ will also have to be applied in cricket-affairs! He has rightly interpreted that organizations like BCCI are contributed by millions through watching (cricket matches); therefore everyone has a right to ask for transparency and accountability. As such RTI Act must apply to the BCCI especially when there were large-scale malpractices in BCCI which has become a fiefdom for a few people, politicians and bureaucrats.”
Agrawal further adds that, “Using word ‘India’ or ‘Indian’ for a cricket-team selected by BCCI itself is enough to bring it under purview of RTI Act. Money minted by BCCI or Indian Premier League (IPL) is national money generated out of public-craze for cricket, and this money should be used for public-welfare schemes rather than distributing like freebies to cricketers for their instant show in selected matches/ tournaments. BCCI and IPL should be taken as autonomous public-sector companies accountable to Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) of India, and answerable under RTI Act. Like private-hospitals cut a large chunk of doctors’ fees for their visits to hospitals, Union Sports Ministry with a control on IPL and BCCI as autonomous public-sector companies, should deduct at least 60% of auction-money from cricketers’ accounts.’’
The question is, will this big fat, pampered cat called BCCI bow down to any decision whatsoever. Like political parties, who are in chorus trying to thwart the CIC decision which has declared them as public authorities. The parties though have defied its order of appointing PIOs and Appellate Authorities.
List of cricket associations directed to submit details of direct or indirect funding;
1. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)
2. Goa Cricket Association
3. Kerala Cricket Association
4. Karnataka State Cricket Association
5. Tamil Nadu Cricket Association
6. The Cricket Association of Bengal
7. Tripura Cricket Association
8. Jharkhand State Cricket Association
9. Assam Cricket Association
10. Orissa Cricket Association
11. Delhi & District Cricket Association
12. Services Sports Control Board
13. Punjab Cricket Association
14. Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association
15. Haryana Cricket Association
16. Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association
17. Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association
18. All India Universities
19. Mumbai Cricket Association
20. Maharashtra Cricket Association
21. Baroda Cricket Association
22. Gujarat Cricket Association
23. Saurashtra Cricket Association
24. Cricket Club of India
25. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association
26. Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association
27. Railways Sports Promotion Board
28. Vidarbha Cricket Association29. National Cricket Club
Aviva Life Penalised Rs20 lakh
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has slapped a Rs20-lakh penalty on Aviva Life Insurance. The fine was imposed for payment of higher commission than what was permitted under regulation. Aviva Life made higher commissions to its corporate agents IndusInd Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank and Anagram Stock Broking Ltd. The insurer made payouts...