FOUNDATION MAGAZINE FINANCIAL ADVICE STOCKLETTERS PORTFOLIO PMS BOOKS
BUY
Medical Insurance Payouts Not Deductible from Motor Vehicles Act Compensation: Bombay High Court
Sahyaja MS (Bar  and  Bench) 04 April 2025
Personal Finance
The Bombay High Court on Friday ruled that amounts received by a claimant under a mediclaim policy or medical insurance policy cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v Dolly Gandhi)
 
A three-judge bench of Justices AS Chandurkar, Milind Jadhav and Gauri Godse emphasised that such payments are based on contractual agreements and should not be used to reduce the statutory compensation owed to accident victims.
 
“Any amount received by a claimant under a mediclaim policy or under a medical insurance policy is not liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation payable to a claimant under the head ‘medical expenses’ in proceedings under Section 166 of the MV Act,” the Court said.
 
The Court was deciding a reference by a single-judge on the issue.
 
The case arose from a dispute between New India Assurance Company and one Dolly Satish Gandhi, who had been awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Mumbai for medical expenses incurred due to an accident.
 
The insurance company challenged the tribunal's decision, contending that the compensation awarded for medical expenses should be reduced from the MACT compensation because the claimant had already received reimbursement for these expenses under the mediclaim policy. 
 
During the hearing, the company's counsel contended that a mediclaim policy operates on the principle of indemnity, which compensates for losses incurred due to medical expenses following an accident. 
 
He argued that the claimant should not be compensated twice for the same accident. He explained that once the insurance company paid out the medical expenses under the mediclaim policy, the claimant was already indemnified for those expenses. 
 
Any further compensation for the same would be a "windfall" or "double compensation" and would amount to an unjust enrichment. He also cited judgments from the Karnataka High Court where mediclaim amounts were deducted from the compensation.
 
On the other hand, counsel representing the claimant, argued that a medical insurance policy is a contractual arrangement between the insured and the insurer, and the compensation under the MV Act is statutory. 
 
He emphasised that the statutory right to compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act cannot be reduced by the amount the claimant receives under a separate contractual agreement with the insurer. 
 
He further contended that the tortfeasor (the party responsible for the accident) should not benefit from the compensation received under the mediclaim policy.
 
The Court while deciding the reference relied on the Supreme Court ruling which established the principle that amounts received under life insurance policies or other contractual agreements should not be deducted from the compensation under the MV Act. 
 
The Court further noted that the Act provides for "just compensation" and emphasised that the purpose of such compensation is to restore the claimant to the position they would have been in, had the accident not occurred.
 
It observed that since insurance payout is a contractual obligation, the insurer company cannot take advantage of the foresight of the deceased, 
 
"From the aforesaid decisions, it is now clear that the amount received on account of insurance is due to the contractual obligations entered into by the insured with others. Having paid premium it was clear that the beneficial amount would accrue to the share of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on death, whatever be the manner of death. The tortfeasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased. This is the settled position of law," the Court held.
 
It further stated that Section 168 of the MV Act, which empowers the Claims Tribunal to award just compensation, does not contemplate any deductions for amounts received under contracts like mediclaim policies. 
 
The Court also emphasised that such deductions would lead to unjust enrichment for the wrongdoer’s insurer, contrary to the fundamental principle of fairness in awarding compensation.
 
The Court then directed that the matter be sent back to the single-judge for further consideration based on the facts of the case.
 
Comments
Personal Finance
The Hidden Traps in Health Insurance: A Personal Perspective
R Balakrishnan, 28 March 2025
Health insurance is something we all recognise as necessary, but few of us truly understand its complexities. Given its cost, one would expect transparency; yet, policies remain opaque. Most people buy insurance based on...
Personal Finance
Allianz Exits from Insurance JV, Bajaj Finserv To Buy 26% Stake in 2 JVs for Rs24,180 Crore
Moneylife Digital Team 18 March 2025
Bajaj Finserv Ltd decided to buy the entire 26% stake of Allianz SE of Germany in the Bajaj group's insurance joint ventures (JVs), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd (BAGIC) and Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company (BALIC)....
Personal Finance
GIC Monopoly Ends for Reinsurance
Moneylife Digital Team 17 March 2025
In a landmark development for India's insurance sector, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) has granted a certificate of registration to Valueattics Reinsurance, marking the end of General Insurance...
Personal Finance
Legal Heirs Cannot Be Excluded from Insurance Benefits after Policyholder's Death: Karnataka HC
Meera Emmanuel (Bar  and  Bench) 05 March 2025
The Karnataka High Court recently called for making laws simpler, while deciding on whether an insurance policy holder's legal heirs can be excluded from claiming insurance benefits if others have been named nominees for the insurance...
Array
  • EDITORS'
    PICKS
  • MOST
    POPULAR
  • MOST
    READ
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback
Buy Now!

Absolute Power

Inside story of the National Stock Exchange’s amazing success, leading to hubris, regulatory capture and algo scam

View Options

The Scam: Now in it's 12th Printing

29 Years Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
#Scam92: Read the actual story.

Buy Now Gift Know More

Moneylife Online Magazine

Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.

1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.

Buy Now Gift Know More

Monthly Digital Access

Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.

30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.

Buy Now Know More

Full Archive access

Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )

Buy Now

Stockletters in 5 Flavours

Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year

Buy Now Know More

MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory

(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)

Buy Now Know More
We are listening!
Reset
Success!

To continue

Please

or

With