AHMEDABAD: In a story of resilience, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled in favour of a non-resident Indian (NRI) and ordered the insurance company to pay the entire claim with 7% interest for the past 18 years. The decision came after Sonali Shah broke her hand while working at an eatery in New Jersey, US, and began a long legal battle to get her due compensation. The case involved Sonali Shah, who had bought two Medicare policies from National Insurance Company Limited. On July 7, 2003, while working at a Burger King outlet, she fell and broke her left hand. She filed a claim in the US and was awarded $60,000 under the US Workmen’s Compensation Act. Her disability was deemed 100%. She lost the use of her left arm and was paid a monthly compensation of $90 for 37 years. Shah’s policy on her return to India covered Rs 50 lakh for 100% disability and a weekly compensation of Rs 5,000 for up to 104 weeks. She filed a claim for 100% disability and sought compensation for 96 weeks. She submitted medical reports and certificates from US doctors and also offered to travel to India for a medical check-up. However, the insurance company assessed her disability at only 15% based on the documents she sent and offered her only Rs 25,000. Shah took the insurance company to the Consumer Dispute Resolution Forum in Ahmedabad, which in 2010 ordered the company to pay Rs 938,000 with interest. However, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission overturned the order, holding that the decisions of US adjudicating authorities are not binding on Indian courts, and the dispute was taken to the National Commission. The NCDRC concluded that the State Commission was wrong in holding that foreign judgments are not binding on Indian courts and said the Commission should have considered that the facts of the consumer’s disability of the limb would remain the same whether in the US or any other country. “A limb which has become useless in the US cannot function in India too,” the Commission said, adding that there was no reason for the insurance company not to believe the conclusion of the US medical authorities. Regarding the insurance company’s reliance on its own doctors’ opinions on the extent of the injury, the NCDRC said, “In the case of a conflict between the two doctors’ opinions, the state board should have given priority to the opinion of the doctor who actually examined the injured person.”
Source link
