Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. We have already decided few cases involving the same controversy whereby we had held that in absence of the C-PAP respondent cannot survive long and as such this system is a part of the treatment of the disease irrespective of the fact whether it is embedded in the body like pace maker because if the patient does not use it he risks his life as there is risk of cardiac failure.

3. Any beneficial legislation or for that purpose beneficial contract like the insurance contract has to be provided and receive a beneficial interpretation and if there are more than one interpretation available the interpretation which goes in favour of the consumer has to be accepted . Our detailed reasons in this regard given in identical cases are in appeal No. 700/02 decided on 22nd March 2007 titled The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Shiv Kumar Rupramka wherein we had discussed the meaning and interpretation of the clause 1 and 3 are as under:-

As is apparent from this clause even those equipments are reimbursable which are essential for treatment of the disease and necessary for saving life, for instance pace maker and artificial limbs. So far as C-PAP is concerned any patient having the disease the respondent was having cannot survive long if such system is not used. Rather he can die any moment if such a device is not used. Rather he can die any moment if such a device is not used. This system has to be used at all times and is therefore part of the treatment of the disease and if patient does not use this device he puts himself at risk of death or repeated problem of cardiac failure. Thus the meaningful interpretation of the aforesaid clause has to be provided keeping in view the nature of the disease and the curing and remedy for the same. The disease and the treatment on hospitalization should have nexus with each other. Survival after receiving treatment for the disease in question without use of C-PAP system is always at risk.

 

Thus from any aspect we may examine the matter, C-PAP system is an equipment like pace-maker or any other such equipment without which there is no cure or any relief from the disease respondent was suffering from.

It is universal rule of interpretation that the contract or the statue should be read as a whole and not in isolation and every clause of the contract and every section of statute should be provided meaning which should be in consonance with the aim and object of the contract and the statute. It should serve its purpose and promote its object. Applying this rule we do not find any escape from the conclusion that the C-PAP system prescribed by the doctor was such instrument which was essential for if not curing the disease as some disease are not curable but controlling it to such an extent that without which the life of the insured is always at risk. The disease in question is such a disease, which kills a person in sleep and if C-PAP system is not considered as an essential part of the treatment of the disease then we do know what else shall be considered.