Citizens' Issues
Teesta Setalvad, husband get protection from arrest till 19th February

The Supreme Court said it would independently examine on the basis of FIR whether it is a case for granting anticipatory bail or not which has been denied to Setalvad and her husband

 

The Supreme Court on Friday granted protection from arrest to social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand for another six days. The couple is facing arrest in a case of alleged embezzlement of funds for a museum at Ahmedabad’s Gulbarg Society that was devastated in the 2002 riots.
 
The apex court said it would independently examine on the basis of FIR whether it is a case for granting anticipatory bail or not which has been denied to Setalvad and her husband.
 
“We are not going to quash the FIR,” a bench comprising justices S J Mukhopadhaya and NV Ramana said.
 
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the couple, said: “We are also only for anticipatory bail” and all documents would be placed to satisfy that “it is not the case of custodial interrogation”.
 
After hearing for half an hour during which Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the plea, the Bench deferred the matter for 19th February, asking the parties to place before it the Gujarat High Court judgment and other additional documents.
 
In the meantime, the order passed Thursday granting them interim protection, shall continue till then, the Bench said.
 
“We will look into the allegations in the FIR mainly. Let it be very clear, we will be looking at the case not by names but like the case of any ordinary individual,” it observed.
 
The apex court was hearing the appeal filed by the Teesta Setalvad and her husband against Thursday’s judgment of the High Court by which their plea for anticipatory bail was rejected for not co-operating with the investigation.
 
The High Court had also observed that the couple was not cooperating in the probe and that “they cannot be armoured with full-fledged anticipatory bail when applicant did not cooperate with the investigation.”
 
Setalvad and her husband have been booked by the Crime Branch of Gujarat Police on charges of cheating, breach of trust and under the IT Act, in a matter relating to the construction of “Museum of Resistance” in the Gulbarg society in Ahmedabad which was hit by communal riot in 2002.
 
On 28 February 2002, in the aftermath of the Godhra train burning incident, armed rioters had swooped on the Gulbarg society and killed 69 people, including former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri.
 

User

COMMENTS

VijayTrimbakGokhale

2 years ago

Let the law take it's own course. In case the allegation of non co operation in investigation is upheld by apex court, then it will mean that those threw stones at others, threw them unmindful of the fact that they themselves were living in glass house.

Aadhaar: Supreme Court makes RBI a party in the case

In a PIL, Col (retd) Mathew Thomas argued that the RBI was asking for Aadhaar number to open bank accounts and KYC documents contrary to interim decision by the Supreme Court for not making the UID mandatory

 

The Supreme Court on Friday made the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) a party in a plea challenging the validity of the Aadhaar scheme through which the government intends to issue a unique identity number to all residents in the country, says a report.  
 
According to report from the Mint, a bench headed by chief justice HL Dattu said the case will be heard by a bench constituted by him as the issue of Aadhaar was important.
 
Col (retd) Mathew Thomas, a former defence services officer and missile scientist turned civic activist had filed the plea before the apex court. Col (retd) Thomas, as per the news report had claimed that RBI was asking for the Aadhaar number to open bank accounts and know-your-customer documents. 
 
The PIL had relied on an earlier interim order of the apex court, which had said that the Aadhaar number could not be a mandatory requirement in availing of services, the report says.
 
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had asked the Narendra Modi government to spell out its stand on Aadhaar and whether it wants to continue with the ambitious programme initiated by its predecessor for giving unique identification (UID) number to every resident across the country. 
 
During the hearing, Senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for Col (retd) Thomas, had said that similar schemes for UID have already been scrapped by many countries and the Centre should be directed to destroy all data collected by it under the scheme. 
 
"Even illegal migrants in country are getting Aadhaar card, enabling them to avail government services which are meant only for citizens of India and not for mere residents. The avowed objectives of UID scheme are itself farcical and the entire exercise is nothing but colossal waste of public money and exposes India's vulnerabilities," he was quoted in a news report.
 

User

COMMENTS

MG Warrier

2 years ago

May be, as is being done in the case of about 100 Central Schemes under implementation, there is a case for reviewing or revisiting many schemes like AADHAAR, NPS and Jan Dhan Yojana which were introduced without adequate homework. Huge amount of public resources is being deployed in such schemes without corresponding benefit and sometimes adding to the agony of the target group. Moneylife has earlier covered NPS and AADHAAR focusing their in-built inadequacies in several articles/comments(some of them by me also).

Health Insurance: Conflicting Data on Claims Ratio in IRDAI and IIB Reports
Health insurance claims ratio for 2012-13 is 68% as per IIB report, but the figures in the IRDAI Annual Report are 103% for government insurers and 79% for private players. Which one is to be believed? 
 
According to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) Annual Report (2013-14), health claims incurred ratio of government insurers is 106% while for private players, the ratio is 88% (claims ratio is total claim paid against the total premiums earned). The figures have increased in comparison to the 2012-2013 data, when the ratio was at 103% for government insurers and 79% for private players. This indicates that government insurance companies are still in losses, and the condition is only getting worse. Private insurers have also witnessed a jump of 9% in claims ratio in a period of just one year.
 
 
If insurers are not making profits, will it lead to a further increase in premiums? As such, government insurers have hiked health insurance premium by 20%-25% last year. Many private insurers also have increased premiums after the introduction of new health insurance guidelines in 2013. Another question that arises is about the impact of high claims ratio on future claims. As such, there is no relation between claims ratio and future claims payment. 
 
A claim should be judged on its own merit for its payment. But, high claims ratio does put pressure on insurers to keep themselves in the business. It means your claim can be scrutinised more than what it would have been in case these insurance companies were making profits. Until recently, United India and New India Assurance had an incentive clause in the Third Party Administrator (TPA) agreement to keep claims ratio within a certain range. This was highly detrimental to the interest of the policyholder whose genuine claims could also be partially paid or rejected just so that the TPA was able to get incentives from the insurance company. New health insurance guidelines issued in 2013 stopped TPA incentives to reduce claims ratio. This was an outcome of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in Bombay High Court by social activist Gaurang Damani. 
 
 
The data in IRDAI’s Annual Report 2012-13 is inconsistent with that presented in the Insurance Information Bureau of India (IIB) Health Insurance Data Analysis Report 2012-13. IRDAI report shows incurred claims ratio of 103% for government insurers and 79% for private players, whereas the IIB report shows claims ratio of 68% for 2012-13 based on data submitted online by all insurers. What is the reason behind this discrepancy? 
 
The IIB report indicates a whopping 30% reduction in claims ratio when compared to the figures a few years back. What do we incur from this – was this a result of higher claims rejections or partial settlements? Does it mean that it was the consumer, who suffered the losses? 
 
IIB was established by IRDAI as a single platform to meet data requirements of the insurance industry in 2009. IIB is supposed to fulfil the need for a sector-level data repository and analytics, which would empower stakeholders through provision of accurate, timely, reliable insurance data and analysis. In July 2013, IIB was made independent body by IRDAI, the reasons for which are unclear. The change could have been triggered by IRDAI’s plans to set up a credit bureau for the insurance sector. Read: Why is the Insurance Information Bureau now and independent body
 
Moneylife had first reported about IIB data discrepancy in 2011. Read Health insurance reports from the Insurance Information Bureau—an IRDA body—are riddled with errors- 
 
Also Read - 
 
 
 

User

COMMENTS

Saumil Mehta

2 years ago

The data would be meaningful if it is split between Group Mediclaim and individual mediclaim.

It is common knowledge that loss making group mediclaim policies sold to many/most large corporates is very heavily discounted despite adverse claims history - this goes n year after year and then insurance companies claim that health insurance is a losing business.

Wonder why IRDA does not see this cross subsidising?All they have to do is ask all companies to give premium and loss data of each of their top 20 clients and audit this data

B. Yerram Raju

2 years ago

Insurance - particularly health insurance is either unavailable at the age when the problems of health are bound to occur however good one's life style may be. The real health insurance would be when the senior citizens beyond 70 and women who beyond 40 become more vulnerable to unexpected imbalances also get health insurance with easy claim option and easy access to health facility to all those who are not covered under either the government or banks' or public sector undertakings' schemes.

REPLY

Dayananda Kamath k

In Reply to B. Yerram Raju 2 years ago

Mainly because people do not take health insurance when they are young as they think it is a loss proposal. that is why it becomes costly and not available when it is most needed. if you have taken it early you will get renewal upto 100 years also in some cases.

Jayakumar

2 years ago

Heath Insurance can be a profitable business if
1.Agents/customers/insurance officials/hospitals and the intermediators are understanding the need/necessity and the conditions of the policy properly and implement honestly without affecting cmpany's interest which prtect the really genuine claims

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)