Recently a tragic story of an uninsured pregnant Ohio women had forced campaigning Hillary Clinton to change her speech. Unfortunately the tragic story ended up with loosing her baby and the lady herself at hospital after being denied the life saving medical care just because of lack of insurance or not able to paying $100 as hospital bill.
Though it’s raised some sort of controversy about the authenticity of the story regarding name of the hospital and denial of medical care. The O’Bleness Memorial Hospital authority had declared that the woman was indeed insured and she never turned away.
Mrs. Clinton in her campaign said “It is so wrong, in this good, great and rich country, that a young woman and her baby would die because she didn’t have health insurance or a hundred dollars to get examined,” she said.
This is indeed an inhumanly act apart from who’s responsible. The unfortunate thing is that a tragic death has taken place. Its true that the hospital authority is primarily responsible for this tragic death because in no instances they should deny to treat a serious patient whether he/she had health insurance or not.
In an another different incident that happened in India back in 2006, had raised a question whether an unborn child, being a consumer entity was entitled to insurance coverage or not. Law recognizes a pregnant woman as a consumer, but can the foetus in her womb be considered a separate entity in respect of insurance claim?
The Maharashtra consumer court had ruled in favor of this opinion. In this landmark judgment, Justice B.B.Vagyani, on behalf of the bench had considered American law under the Urban Victims of Violence Act 2004 where a person was granted to a human foetus. The law can’t be static but an instrument of socio-economic change.
The tragic incident that happened in a fateful night while insured/policy holder Mohanlal Kotecha, his son Atul and his daughter-in-law Swati were traveling in his Maruti Suzuki car that crashed in a road accident and all of the occupants were died on the spot.
The car that eventually was driven by the policy-holder’s son, had an comprehensive coverage from a govt. run(PSU) insurance company with an accidental insurance for the owner-driver and three un-named passengers.
Kanta Kotecha, a widow of Mohanlal had lodged a claim with the insurance company and the insurer, setting an example agreed to pay claims for the deceases Mohanlal and Swati, but repudiated the claim for Atul on the ground that he was not a paid driver. The insurance company also refused the claim in respect of the foetus on the ground that an unborn child can’t be treated as a passenger.
Being rejected, Mrs.Kotecha appealed the District Forum for the claims. After hearing the parties, the forum directed the insurance company to pay the claim for her deceased son. But the forum upheld the rejection of claim in respect of unborn child on the ground that unborn child could not be treated as passenger.
Kanta Kotecha once again appealed against this order before Maharashtra State Commission. Commission ruled in favor of the case. According to science, during the second trimester of pregnancy, the embryo turns into a foetus and attains a recognizable human form. In this case, the unborn child in the womb is living and be entitled to personhood. The post mortem report had also upheld it. Hence the claim in respect of unborn child was maintainable
Best Related Posts
4 Hidden Basics You Need to Know Before Filing a Claim by Kaushik Adhikary on May 7th, 2008
