HC orders insurance firm to pay widow for husband’s death due to Covid
The appellant’s husband took insurance under the master policy for a secured sum of Rs26.87 lakh. Her husband was infected by Covid-19 on July 3, 2020, and was admitted to JIPMER in Puducherry. He died on July 26, 2020. A division bench of Justice C V Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel observed that it is the common knowledge that this Covid-19 virus would affect everybody, whether they are suffering from hypertension or from diabetes. Even if he did not have the same, if he had been affected by Covid-19 virus, he would still have suffered the same fate. The appellant’s husband died in the first phase of Covid-19, when the medical world still did not know the effects of the virus and the proper treatment to be given to the virus and the measures to be taken to prevent any individual from being affected by the said virus. Hence, the judges directed the company to honour its commitment under the policy for the secured sum of Rs26.87 lakh.
Madurai : Madras high court granted relief to a widow to get an insurance claim of Rs26.87 lakh for her husband’s death due to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Therefore, it is immaterial that the husband of the appellant had or that he suffered from hypertension. You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Madurai | Silver Rate in Madurai | Bank Holidays in Madurai | Public Holidays in Madurai | Madurai AQI | Weather in Madurai | Petrol Price in Madurai | Diesel Price in Madurai | CNG Price in Madurai | LPG Price in Madurai Stay updated with the latest Madurai news.
The single judge said that it had been specifically found that the husband had not disclosed that he was suffering from diabetes and that he was also prone to hypertension. “Though the fact of diabetes and hypertension have not been disclosed in the policy, we still hold that the risk of death by Covid-19 virus should be covered by the insurance company as that was a supervening circumstance and was not available as a cause for death, at the time when the policy was introduced or was entered into between the parties,” the judges observed. The court was hearing the appeal preferred by Syed Ali Fathima (appellant) challenging the order of a single judge. The insurance company rejected the claim stating that the husband had suppressed the fact that he had diabetes, blood pressure, hypertension, or that he was suffering from diabetes and hypertension. Holding that there was a breach of the utmost good faith clause, the single judge dismissed the petition. Challenging the order, the appellant preferred the present appeal. There was no proper treatment which was available at that particular point of time. Since the husband had also not disclosed these facts, the court protected the company from payment of any interest on the amount. Download the TOI App.
Challenging the order, Fathima filed a petition before the high court.