Life insurance is plagued with several issues of mis-selling by intermediaries and even more by banks. Moneylife Foundation has handed over a memorandum to IRDA which highlights the citizens' concerns
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has the task of keeping insurance companies in check from mis-selling and profiting from toxic products. IRDA has initiated several steps in this direction. There is always scope for improvement and hence Moneylife foundation decided to meet number of activists, experts, eminent citizens and citizens groups to get their feedback. The issues along with required actions were put in memorandum and given to IRDA on May 10, 2012.
Life insurance issues range from mis-selling by officers of insurance companies which includes forgery and falsification of documents, bancassurance channel which has seen rampant mis-selling, deep reluctance on the part of insurers to sell term plans, traditional products carrying high commission which means poor returns for customers and insurers profiting from lapsed policies and toxic products and so. These are other issues are contained in the memorandum Moneylife Foundation has submitted to the IRDA. A copy is uploaded here.
The HC bench held that Rule 105 of MCS Rules provide that the appeals under the Act lie before the state Government and may be heard by the Secretary, Additional Secretary or any of the Deputy Secretaries to the Cooperative department
Mumbai: Overruling its earlier order, the Bombay High Court has held that Secretary, Additional Secretary or Deputy Secretary to the Maharashtra Government in Cooperation department had the jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide appeals filed under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (MCS) Act, reports PTI.
"The earlier judgement holding that hearing of appeals under section 152 of MCS Act by the Secretary, Cooperation Department, was without jurisdiction does not lay down the correct law and the decision is hereby overruled," observed Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice Nitin Jamdar recently.
The bench was hearing a reference made by Justice GS Godbole in respect of the provision relating to hearing of appeals by the Secretary in the Cooperation Department of the State of Maharashtra under section 152 of MCS Act.
The petitions filed before Justice Godbole arose from orders passed by the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) and Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies in proceedings under Section 11 read with Section 25A of the MCS Act.
All the petitioners had filed statutory appeals under section 152 of the MCS Act before the State Government. The Secretary issued notices to the petitioners to appear before him in respect of hearing of the appeals. This action of the Secretary was questioned in the petitions.
During the hearing of petitions before Justice Godbole, reliance was placed on the judgement of brother Judge RMS Khandeparkar in the case of Ravindra V Gaikwad v/s The State of Maharashtra and others to contend the Secretary had no power to hear the appeals under section 152 of MCS Act.
As Justice Godbole did not agree with the earlier judgement which had held that the Secretary had no power to hear the appeals under MCS Act, he made a reference to a larger bench which has now overruled the judgement delivered by Justice Khandeparkar.
The Bench considered two issues -- firstly whether there was any statutory provision that empowered the Secretary to hear appeals arising under section 152 of MCS Act. And, if there was such a provision, whether it was bad in law because it is not in accordance with the Conduct of Business Rules.
The bench held that Rule 105 of MCS Rules provide that the appeals under the Act lie before the state Government and may be heard by the Secretary, Additional Secretary or any of the Deputy Secretaries to the Cooperative department.
The Judges held that the State Legislature has delegated the power to specify the authority to which the appellate power of the State Government may be delegated. The State Legislature has also retained the power to make such modification in such rules of delegation as the delegate (State Government) may make, the bench observed.
"In our view, therefore, the State Legislature can never be said to have intended to exclude delegation of the appellate power to an authority to officers like Secretary, Additional Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Government."
It was argued that since the Legislature has conferred appellate powers on the State Government as a rule making authority, the State could not have delegated the appellate power to Secretary, Additional Secretary or Deputy Secretary.
However, the division bench observed that this argument is misconceived. The revisional power is to be exercised where any decision or order has been passed by any subordinate officer and no appeal lies against such decision or order.
"The revisional powers may be exercised not merely upon an application which may be made by any party to the dispute, but such power can also be exercised suo-motu for the purpose of satisfying the revisional authority as to the legality of any order of subordinate officer or as to the regularity of the proceedings. Hence, Legislature deemed it fit to provide that the revisional power may also be exercised by an officer of the rank of Secretary to Government", the bench said.
Thus, there is no illegality in Secretary, Additional Secretary or Deputy Secretary to the Maharashtra Government in Cooperation Department hearing the appeals which lie to the State under the MCS Act, the judges held.
Health insurance is a cause of concern for everyone. There are several issues that need regulatory intervention and direction. IRDA has been handed over a memorandum by Moneylife Foundation highlighting the actions for each consumer concerns
The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) have the task of protecting policyholders and has initiated several steps in this direction. There is always scope for improvement and hence Moneylife foundation decided to meet number of activists, experts, eminent citizens and citizens groups to get their feedback. The issues along with required actions were put in memorandum and given to IRDA on 10 May 2012.
Among the more common issues that citizens face are rising health insurance premium, senior citizens' inability to increase sum insured, mediclaim policies getting restrictive with different caps, increase in the number of claim rejections for frivolous reasons, cashless facility restricted to few hospitals, claims based loading even after decades of no-claims from the policyholder, stringent hospitalisation intimation and claims submission deadlines, poor and delayed grievance redressal, several Third Party Administrator (TPA) issues which has harassed policyholders to no end and lack of control on medical charges of hospitals and consultants.
Moneylife Foundation is analysed and collated these issues and put them in a memorandum and given to IRDA. A copy of this memorandum is uploaded here.