Saturday, December 17, 2016

Kolkata High Court, Division Bench Judgement on 100 Percent Dearness Allowance- Review Petition

Circular issued by AIBRF on the above subject is reproduced below
Ref:2016/606                                            Date:12.12.2016
The Office Bearers/Central Committee Members/ State Body
Dear Comrades,
Re: Kolkata High Court, Division Bench Judgement on 100 Percent Dearness Allowance- Review Petition

We request you to refer our circular No. 2016/601 dated
08.12.2016 advising that our affiliate and petitioner in the case, United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association had moved review petition in the division bench with the request it to make some corrections/typographical errors in the judgement delivered on 26th September, 2016 in the matter of 100 percent Dearness Allowance to pre-November,2002 retirees. As advised earlier the judgement was in favour of the retirees.
2. Now we are pleased to inform you that the corrections sought by the petitioner(us) have been accepted by the bench and passed the necessary order in this regard on 05.12.2016. With these modifications, the judgement on the subject has become free from any ambiguity and strengthen hands of the retirees in its implementation. Copy of the order passed by the court on 05.12.2016 is enclosed for your ready reference.
3. Your attention is drawn on the following modifications
(a) In Para 3 of the judgement, the word Pension Regulations has been replaced with the clause 6th of the Bipartite Settlement dated 29th October, 2016. It means that clause 6 where in it is written that DA formula for pensioners will be at par with RBI formula should be implemented and DA should be paid accordingly to those retired before November 2002 irrespective of whatever written in Pension Regulations. This is very important and welcome modification.
(b) In paragraph No18, new sentence has been added giving
specific direction to the bank to comply with Regulation No
37 and pay DA to pre-2002 retirees at par with those enjoyed by the post 2002 retirees.
4. We hope now IBA/ Bank managements will take the judgement in proper sprit and implement it without any further
delay. We are taking up the matter with IBA/ Government for

Its immediate implementation.
5. We hope Unions will also take up the issue with IBA/
Government for implementation of the judgement. We seek their support in this regard. This has been the demand of UFBU and its constituents. We hope Unions will show unity and solidarity with the retirees by writing suitable letter to IBA/ Govt. in this regard.
6. We shall also raise the issue in the forthcoming meeting with RLC.
7. We congratulate Comrade Debesh Bhattacharya, General
Secretary, United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association and  his team for this successful fight.
With Warm Greetings
Yours Sincerely,
( S.C.JAIN )


Click here to view original judgement by Kolkata HC
Click here to view modified order by Kolkata HC


Monday, December 12, 2016

Filing of Case with Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner(Central), Mumbai 0n 05.12.2016 as industrial dispute in 100 percent DA matter, by AIBRF

Copy of cir Ref: 2016/601 dated:08.12.2016 issued by All India Bank Retirees Federation (AIBRF) to its  Office Bearers/ Central Committee Members/ State Body Chiefs on 100% DA issue, is reproduced here under for information:
Dear Comrade,
                                                      Re: Filing of Case with Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner(Central), Mumbai 0n 05.12.2016   as industrial dispute in 100  percent DA matter                                                   We wish to advise you that as per the decision taken in Nagpur Central Committee Meeting, We have since filed the case as industrial dispute in the matter of 100 percent Dearness Allowance with the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai on 05.12.2016. The notices have been served to the Indian Bank Association and unions who are parties to the settlement.

 2. As per the advice of the advocate handling the matter, broadly the following points have been raised in our petition

(a)Dearness Allowance formula was improved for employees with effect from 01.05.2005 under the wage settlement(8th settlement) signed, However, there is no specific provision in the settlement for improved DA allowance payable to pensioners. While issuing instructions to member banks, IBA took decision at the administrative level to exclude those retired prior to November 2002 from the benefit of improved formula. Whether such administrative instruction of IBA in the absence of specific provision in the settlement is legally tenable.

 (b) Depriving the pensioners who retired prior to November 2002 from the improved formula of DA that too without any specific provision in the settlement is discriminative and violative to the provisions of the constitution. We hope CLC will convene the meeting for conciliation proceedings in the matter shortly. We shall keep you informed the developments in the matter from time to time.

United Bank case In 100 percent Dearness Allowance decided by Division Bench of Kolkata High Court.
 We may also inform you that in coordination with AIBRF , United Bank of India Retired employees Welfare Association has since filed caveat in the Supreme Court with the prayer to hear retiree stand before admitting any SLP filed by the bank management. Further as per the legal advice received , the United Bank of India Retired employees; welfare association had filed review petition in the Division bench of Kolkata High Court for making some correction in the judgement which inadvertently crept in with the prayer to make the required modification to remove any ambiguity in the judgement. We understand the review petition was argued two days back and closed and the decision is expected shortly.
We are keeping close watch in the matter and shall take further appropriate action required to protect interest of the retirees in coordination with the affiliate and as per the legal advice received.
Yours Sincerely,
 ( S.C.JAIN )
Source:AIBRF website 


Friday, December 9, 2016

Long pending issues of Bank Pensioners and Retirees.

We reproduce below the full text of the letter of CBPRO dated 30.11.2016 addressed to CEO of IBA
The Chief Executive Officer,
Indian Banks’ Association,
World Trade Centre 6th Floor,
Centre 1 Building,
World Trade Centre Complex,
Cuff Parade, Mumbai 400005
Respected Sir,
Sub: Long Pending Issues of Bank Pensioners and Retirees
We understand that the Managing Committee of IBA in its meeting held on 29.7.2016 to consider the issues pertaining to Retirees resolved that in the absence of specific mandate from Member Banks to IBA to discuss the issues on their behalf betreated as withdrawn. The absence of mandate from the Member Banks to discuss these issues was cited as reason for nottaking any further action on those issues.
In this connection we would like to invite your kind attention to Charter of Demands submitted to IBA by the organisations of  serving officers and employees in October 2012 contain a separate chapter on Superannuation Benefits including Pension. You will appreciate that IBA had then forwarded a copy of the said Charter of Demands to all the Member Banks and sought requisite mandate to discuss the Charter of Demands. Accordingly all the Member Banks had given mandate to IBA authorising it to discuss Charter of Demands including Superannuation Benefits. Under such circumstances the reason given by IBA for not taking any further action is unfounded and factually incorrect. We request you to examine the issue in right perspective.It is also pertinent to mention that the Pension issues of Bank Employees and Officers are governed by Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995. A perusal of Pension Regulations would reveal that there is no provision to secure mandate from Bank Managements as a pre condition to consider any improvement. Even on this count, the ground for not taking any further action by IBA is violative of Pension Regulations.
The very fact that IBA had signed a Record Note at the time of signing Xth Bipartite/Joint Note on 25.05.2015 on all the pending issues of Retirees including improvement in Family Pension, 100% DA neutralisation to pre 2002 Retirees and updation of Pension etc stands a mute testimony to the legitimate demands of Retirees in this regard. The said record note need to be
respected by IBA by settling the issues contained therein at the earliest. 
 The very fact that IBA has collected from Member Banks the data relating to (i) 100% DA for pre 2002 Retirees (ii) Improvement in Family Pension (iii) Pension Updation and (iv) One more Pension option to leftover Retirees/Resignees vindicates the desirability of a positive consideration of our demands.
It is also reiterated that at the time of signing of Record Note IBA has given a solemn assurance about resolving the issues amicably. It is disheartening that despite such a commitment, IBA has been changing its stance to avoid a meaningful discussion to resolve the issues giving lame excuses irrelevantly. We have been repeatedly requesting you to hold negotiations with the Coordination of Bank Pensioners’ and Retirees Organisations (CBPRO) which comprehensively represent the Bank
Pensioners and Retirees. We once again request you to honour the commitment by initiating meaningful discussion for resolving the issues relating to Bank Pensioners and Retirees.
As regards the contention of IBA that Pension Scheme of Banks is a Funded Scheme and additional liability if any towards pension is to be allocated from the profits of the Banks is misleading. We wish to invite to your kind attention to Pension Regulation 5(3) which provides that the Banks shall be a contributor to the fund and shall ensure that the sufficient sums are placed in it to enable the trustees to make due payments to beneficiaries under these Regulations. Regulation 11 further provides that Bank shall cause an investigation to be made by an actuary into the financial condition of the fund every financial year on the 31st day of March and make such additional contributions to the fund as may be required to secure payment of the benefits under these Regulations. It is thus clear that the Pension Regulations do not provide for allocation ofadditional funds from the profits of the Banks. Hence inadequacy or otherwise of profit cannot be cited as a ground for declining the legitimate demands of Bank Pensioners and Retirees. Various Judicial pronouncements including by Hon’ble
Supreme Court also substantiate our contentions. It is reiterated that the Pension is considered as deferred wages and hence the Bank Pension Scheme being a DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION SCHEME cannot by any stretch of imagination be sought to be distorted by the Managing Committee of IBA.
It is also clarified that the contributions to the Pension Funds are covered under Pension Regulations which are subordinate legislations and hence it is mandatory on the part of Banks to adequately provide for Pension Fund. It is a paradox that the Regulatory Provisions dictated by RBI for Non Performing Assets (NPA) are made by the Banks without any application of mind irrespective of profitability of the Banks. It is submitted that Regulatory Provisions of RBI cannot be treated superior to Legislative Provisions. You are therefore requested to consider the issues relating to Bank Pensioners and Retirees holistically in this perspective.
We once again reiterated that the Pension Regulation 35(1) provides that Basic Pension and additional Pension, wherever  applicable shall be updated. You will appreciate that this provision providing for Pension updation was implemented in true spirit at the time of introduction of Pension Scheme in the Banks by effecting updation in respect of those employees who superannuated between 1.1.1986 and 31.10.1987. The present demand is relating to updation of Basic Pension and hence is to restore the practice of updation.
In view of the foregoing facts we request you to hold talks with us on all the pending issues concerning the Bank Pensioners and Retirees and resolve the same immediately.
Thanking you,
A.Ramesh Babu       K.V.Acharya
            Joint Conveners

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Extension for joining - IBA mediclaim scheme for the retirees for the year 2016-17

One more opportunity is being offered to the following categories of the retirees to join the IBA Mediclaim Retirees scheme.
1. Bank employees who have retired in 2015-16. (Between 1st Oct 2015-30th Sep 2016) and were covered under expiring employee's policy.
2. Retiree's who were covered under expiring retirees policy, but could not renew by remitting the premium in time.

The insurance premium and period will be with the following modalities as below:
1. Retirees would be covered from 16th Dec 2016 to 31st Oct 2017. Retiree has to pay the FULL premium as mentioned below

Premium for joining the scheme is as under
Option I: Normal Renewal on As Is Basis (Without Domiciliary cover)
For Retired Officers (Sum Insured of Rs. 4,00,000)       : Rs. 13,935 Plus Service Tax @15% = Rs. 16,025/-
For Retired Award Staff (Sum Insured of Rs. 3,00,000) :  Rs. 10,452 Plus Service Tax @15% = Rs. 12,020/-
Option II: With Domiciliary Expenses Benefits Option ( 59 diseases as per Employees Policy).
For Retired Officers - Domiciliary Cover of Rs. 40,000 with overall Sum Insured of Rs. 4,00,000.
For Retired Award staff - Domiciliary Cover of Rs. 30,000 with overall Sum Insured of Rs. 3,00,000.
For Retired Officers         : Rs. 17,400 Plus Service Tax @15% = Rs. 20,010/-
For Retired Award Staff   :  Rs. 13,000 Plus Service Tax @15% = Rs. 14,950/-

Dena Bank and Bank of India has already issued circular in this regard.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

BOB clears reimbursement of domiciliary treatment for the year 1/11/2015-31/10/2016

Bank of Baroda has issued circular  (No.HO:BR:108:182)  on 19/11/2016  advising / agreeing reimbursement of domiciliary treatment expenses for the year 1/11/2015 to 31/10/2016.

The credit for the issue is absolutely to Shri. S Ramchandran, Former GM of BOB,  who roped in DFS to force bank to consider the issue.

Click here to view circular by Bank of Baroda

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Submission of Life Certificate by bank pensioners / family pensioners

Bank pensioners / family pensioners are required to submit life certificates in the month of November every year. As a precondition for payment of pension to the eligible staff pensioners and family members of retired expired staff (including pre 01.01.1986 retirees / spouses who are receiving ex gratia payment ) are required to submit life  certificate and remarriage / employment certificate, which needs to be authenticated by the concerned bank branch where pension payment is made. In case the life certificate is not submitted bank can stop pension payment till the submission of life certificate. 
   In some banks, mere presence of Pensioner before bank official of pension drawing /other branch is enough to certify/record  his/her existence and such banks  are giving Acknowledgement of life  certificate to respective pensioners.In few other Banks, pensioner has to sign on Life certificate to prove their very existence. 
   Some of the banks have issued circular regarding digital life certificate. Digital Life Certificate submission involves biometric authentication by the pensioner from remote point and creation of life certificate maintained in digital repository .  Govt of India has launched Jeevan Pramman portal for life certificate in digital format. Adhar card number of the pensioner is prerequisite  for digital life certificate.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Clarifications on Domicilary Cover by United India Insurance Company

The United India Insurance Company has clarified that "The Domiciliary Cover of Rs.40000 or Rs.30000 reimbursement is within overall sum insured. The retiree / claimant has to use the same within the overall sum insured he is entitled for. With Domiciliary Expenses and Hospitalisation claim the sum insured should not exceed Rs.40000 and Rs. 30000 respectively."
The insurance company has sent the list of 59 ailments covered under domiciliary treatment, which is given below. 

 Domiciliary Hospitalization / Domiciliary Treatment
No.  Treatments
1  Cancer
2  Leukemia
3  Thalassemia
4  Tuberculosis
5  Paralysis
6  Cardiac Ailments
7  Pleurisy
8  Leprosy
9  Kidney Ailment
10 All Seizure disorders
11  Parkinson’s diseases
12  Psychiatric disorder including schizophrenia and psychotherapy
13  Diabetes and its complications
14  Hypertension
15  Hepatitis –B
16  Hepatitis - C
17  Hemophilia
18  Myasthenia gravis
19  Wilson’s disease
20  Ulcerative Colitis
21  Epidermolysis bullosa
22  Venous Thrombosis(not caused by smoking) Aplastic Anaemia
23  Psoriasis
24  Third Degree burns
25  Arthritis
26  Hypothyroidism
27  Hyperthyroidism expenses incurred on radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the treatment of cancer and leukemia
28  Glaucoma
29  Tumor
30  Diptheria
31  Malaria
32  Non-Alcoholic Cirrhosis of Liver
33  Purpura
34  Typhoid
35  Accidents of Serious Nature
36  Cerebral Palsy
37  Polio
38  All Strokes Leading to Paralysis
39  Haemorrhages caused by accidents
40  All animal/reptile/insect bite or sting
41  Chronic pancreatitis
42  Immuno suppressants
43  Multiple sclerosis / motorneuron disease
44  Status asthamaticus
45  Sequalea of meningitis
46  Osteoporosis
47  Muscular dystrophies
48  Sleep apnea syndrome(not related to obesity)
49  Any organ related (chronic) condition
50  Sickle cell disease
51  Systemic lupus erythematous (SLE)
52  Any connective tissue disorder
53  Varicose veins
54  Thrombo embolism venous thrombosis/venous thrombo embolism (VTE)]
55  Growth disorders
56  Graves’ disease
57  Chronic Pulmonary Disease
58  Chronic Bronchitis
59  Physiotherapy and swine flu shall be considered for reimbursement under domiciliary treatment.

Source: Circular by Bank of India

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Clarification on procedure to be followed for lodging claims under domiciliary as given by United India Insurance Co Ltd

We reproduce below the circular issued by AIBRF on the above subject.
               Our query
       UIIC clarification
Modalities of domiciliary expenses .
What will be the modalities of reimbursing the claim under domiciliary expenses to retirees ?
It can be send to TPA directly or to the nearest Bank office from where it has to be forwarded to zonal office enabling the TPA officer to collect it.
Format for claiming domiciliary  expenses.
Whether you have introduced any prescribed format for claiming domiciliary expenses for retirees ? If yes, please provide us a copy of the same.
 Same claim form as being  used for hospitalization. Please advise the retiree to write on the top "For domiciliary treatment".
Nature of expenses admissible.
Please clarify what type/nature of expenses are covered for the treatment of identified 59 ailments.
 Same as applicable to employee policy.
Extension of domiciliary treatment to such retirees, who are not the member at present.
Since the  UIICL has introduced option for domiciliary expenses  now, whether such retirees who have not become member of the Scheme so far,  can join the Medical Insurance Scheme now ?
 Only present retirees who are covered in the current policy are allowed to join the renewal policy.
Switching over from domiciliary expenses benefit to normal renewal (without domiciliary cover) or vice versa.
Please clarify whether a  retiree who opts for domiciliary expenses benefit (Option II) now, be allowed  to  switch over to normal renewal next  year or Vice-versa
The final decision would be taken at the time of renewal.

Source: AIBRF Website

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Renewal of Medical Policy for retirees - new premium rates

United India Insurance Company has announced the premium rates for renewal of retirees policy for the year 2016-17 as under with two options.

Source - Andhra Bank Website - Retirees Corner
Click here to view circular by Andhra Bank


Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Health Insurance – For protection of Health but of WHOM – BANK OR UIIC ????

Letter received from Shri R K Pathak , our google group member , on the above subject is reproduced below.

Health Insurance – For protection of Health but of WHOM – BANK OR UIIC ????
Recently, IBA has issued communication No. [ORDINANCE] No. CIR/HR&IR/J/2015-16/1169 dated    October 1, 2016 to its Member Bank intimating the adamant attitude of UIIC for not extending the policy for 30 days to enable IBA to discuss in its Managing Committee & with Member Banks. IBA further advised to pay renewal premium which is 112% higher and threatened Member Banks in the said communication as “In the absence of renewal of the policy, liability on account of hospitalization claims by employees post 30.09.2016 will have to be honored by banks.” [Ex-A] In the communication of IBA, it is also mentioned that 15 banks have remitted the premium for renewal as demanded by Insurer i.e. UIIC.

The efforts of IBA were supported by the workman Union by advising their units on 1/10/2016 “ Our units in other Banks should immediately pursue the matter with their management to ensure that the policy is not allowed to lapse and employees do not get uncovered by the benefits of the policy.”[Ex-B] In the circular of Workmen Union, it is reported that 18 Banks have paid the premium. i.e. 15 reported by IBA and 3 more, Federal, UCo and Vijaya Bank. This facts itself reveals the role of Union to safe guard the Bank Employees to have continued cover.

The Officer Organization too issued communication to IBA on 1/10/2016 to getrenewal of the Insurance Policy as per the original terms negotiated “and in the absence of which, IBA must decide taking a legal recourse against the Insurance Company or approaching Consumer Forum and also member Banks may immediately be advised to honour the claims of the employees to the debit of their establishment expenses. [Ex-C] 

Wednesday, September 28, 2016


Here is another favorable judgement in favour of pre 2002 pensioners from Kolkatta High Court under APO 315/2015 dated 26.09.2016.It may be recalled, that while delivering the verdict in Writ Petition NO. 507 of 2012 filed by United Bank of India Retirees' Welfare Association and Others against United Bank of India and Others,on extending 100% DA to pre Nov 2002 pensioners,before Hon : HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA on 4 th March 2015 learned Single Judge I P Mukerji, made it clear that :"In my opinion, the classification made in this case just as in the case of DS Nakara, is arbitrary and highly irrational. There is no intelligible difference between the pre 1st November, 2002 and post 1st November, 2002 retirees'. The artificial classification is discriminatory of one class of retired employees" and directed as follows: 
 " The Board of the respondent bank in consultation with the Central government and the Reserve Bank of India to take a reasoned decision, in the light of the above observations and findings regarding payment of 100% dearness relief to the pre November-2002 retirees' of the respondent bank by 30th June, 2015."
However management of United Bank of India preferred Against this verdict before Division Bench of KHC.The good news is the same Appeal is dismissed by HC and decided in favour of Retired Employees Assosciation and directed :
"We find that the distinction, between the pre-November, 2002 retirees and post-November, 2002 retirees, is unreasonable, arbitraryand discriminatory. There is no justification for the same. Thougheach bank which is a member of the Indian Banks Association has aseparate identity, the mandate of the Pension Regulations which have astatutory force of law, cannot be altered by a joint note.
Therefore, we direct the Bank to comply with Regulation 6 of the Pension Regulations and to pay pension to the pre-2002 retirees at the same rate as enjoyed by the post-2002 retirees, as has been paid to the retired employees of the Reserve Bank of India. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified to that extent. "

Monday, September 26, 2016

Health Insurance – For protection of Health but of WHOM????

Letter received from Shri R K Pathak , our google group member , on the above subject is reproduced below.

Health Insurance – For protection of Health but of WHOM????

As per the 10th bipartite settlement signed on 25/05/2015, IBA introduced Group Health Insurance Scheme for Employees in Service as well as for retirees with cover of 3 lacs for award staff and 4 lacs for Officers.
The Insurance premium charged for cover of 3 & 4 lacs for retirees was of Rs.4930 and 6573 excluding service tax and policy became in operation from 1/11/2015 to 31/10/2016.
The almost 11 month’s period is lapsed and still IBA is yet to decide the issue of “Domiciliary Treatment” which was agreed in settlement and now policy is due for renewal.
The Group Health Insurance Policy of in service Employees is due for renewal on 1/10/2016 and UIIC was expected to renew the policy without increasing the premium. But now UIIC has intimated the IBA vide their communication dated 15/09/2016 that revised premium from 01/10/2016 will be as under:-
Amount Insured
Previous Premium
Revised premium
Increase in Amount
Increase in %
Award Staff
Rs.3.00 lacs
Rs.4930+ Tax
10452 + Tax
Rs.4.00 Lacs
Rs.6573 + Tax
Rs.13935 + Tax

The UIIC has increased the premium by 112% which is not in accordance with the policy document and condition stipulated at clause 5.18 which reads as under:-
Subject otherwise to terms and conditions of Group Mediclaim Policy as attached. The Insurance Company agrees for a continuity cover for three years based on the following annual renewal matrix. Claims Ratio
Claims Ratio
Discount/ Loading Percentage to be applied on the base premium
Not Exceeding 25% 40% discount
Not Exceeding 30% 35% discount
Not Exceeding 40% 25% discount
Not Exceeding 50% 15% discount
Not Exceeding 60% 5% discount
61% - 110% No discount no Loading
111% - 115% 5% loading
116% - 120% 7% loading
121% - 125% 10% loading
126% - 130% 13% loading
131% - 135% 15% loading
136% - 140% 18% loading
IBA immediately responded UIIC over revised premium referring the agreed clause 5.18 in the policy, vide their communication dated 17/09/2016 but UIIC did not concede to the request of the IBA as claim ratio has reached 180 to 190% for which loading matrix was not provided in the Policy and became firm on 112% increase in the premium.
As the policy is due for renewal on 1/10/2016 for in-service employees and as IBA has advised to Bank of revised premium on 22/09/2016 [copy attached] and as the insurance premium has to be paid in advance, Member Banks will have to accept this unreasonable rise in the premium and will be making payments to UIIC contrary to the terms of Policy.
Neither Bank Management NOR UFBU leaders will raise any voice on the dictating terms of UIIC & IBA as in service employees premium is borne by Bank and Board of the Bank is not accountable to GOI for accepting this unreasonable term by debit to Banks profit, which is already shrinking.
The real problem is ahead as the policy for retirees is due for renewal on 1/11/2016 and premium has to be paid by retirees, POOR retirees will have to accept this unreasonable premium which is not only exorbitant but equal to / double of their monthly pension / family pension and acts of UIIC / IBA and Bank raises doubt that whether the policy is implemented to protect the life of Retirees or to destroy them with a view to remove them from members of Pension fund????.
Attention is invited of ALL CONCERNED to terms and condition of policy document which is as under:-
“The Company may revise any of the terms, conditions and exceptions of this insurance including the premium payable on renewal in accordance with the guidelines/rules framed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) and after obtaining prior approval from the Authority. We shall notify you of such changes at least three months before the revision are to take effect. The Company may also withdraw the insurance as offered hereunder after following the due process as laid down by the IRDA and after obtaining prior approval of the Authority and we shall offer to cover you under such revised/new terms, conditions, exceptions and premium for which we shall have obtained from the Authority.”
1)      Does the act of UIIC / IBA to give 10 days’ notice for enhancing premium falls within agreed clause 8 as referred above?????
2)      Does the 112% increase in premium for renewal falls within agreed clause 5.18 as referred above?????
3)      Does the act of UIIC is in accordance with IRDAI (Health Insurance) Regulations 2013 and IRDAI Protection Policyholders’ Interest) Regulations 2002 / 2014 as amended from time to time as agreed at clause 6 of the policy document?????


The answer is reflected in the last para of the UIIC communication dated 22/09/2016,[copy attached] that prompted IBA to act promptly and the said para reads as under:-
“We also propose that if the loss ratio is kept under control and profit generated, if any, shall be shared equally".

Thanks & Regards

Pathak R K 


Note :- Author being resignee is not covered in the Health Insurance Policy by the Bank, Despite Policy Documents issued by UIIC covers the Resignee and 16 banks have extended the cover to this category. The views expressed are based on the contents agreed in the Policy and documents attached herein.
Click on the following links