Mumbai, March 31 : In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that the amount received by an individual under a mediclaim policy cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded for medical expenses under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
As per agency report, a full bench comprising Justices A S Chandurkar, Milind Jadhav, and Gauri Godse delivered the verdict on March 28, clarifying that the amount received under a mediclaim policy is a result of a contractual agreement between the claimant and the insurance company.
The court observed that any deduction from compensation on account of such insurance proceeds would not be acceptable. The matter had been referred to the full bench following conflicting opinions expressed by various single and division benches on this issue.
Citing previous Supreme Court judgments, the bench emphasized that it is not just the power, but also the duty of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to ensure fair and reasonable compensation to victims. The judges explained that the amount received from an insurance company stems from a contractual obligation for which the insured has paid premiums.
The court stated that the proceeds from a mediclaim policy are meant for the benefit of the insured or their nominee, whether upon policy maturity or death, regardless of the cause. It concluded that the financial foresight and wise investment by the deceased or insured should not benefit the wrongdoer.
The ruling came while hearing an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Limited against a decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had awarded separate compensation for medical expenses, apart from other damages.
The insurance company argued that medical expenses were already covered under the mediclaim policy, and awarding them again would amount to double compensation. However, the court rejected this contention.
Advocate Gautam Ankhad, appointed as amicus curiae, submitted that provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act concerning medical expenses must be interpreted in favour of the claimant or victim, as it is a welfare legislation. He further pointed out that the insurer suffered no loss, having already received premium payments from the insured.
