The customers are warned to make enquiries and be satisfied before they close any transaction. Star Health and Allied Insurance Co Ltd, IRDAI licensed stand-alone health insurer, hereby makes it clear to customers and would be customers and those visiting this website, run officially by this company for its benefit and the interest of its stakeholders, that there could be websites or entities running duplicate sites and offering for sale products belonging to this company. Public receiving such phone calls are requested to lodge a police complaint. The tribunal stated, “Should the Authority have concerns in respect of the Licence Variation Application, it may impose suitable conditions.IRDAI is not involved in activities like selling insurance policies, announcing bonus or investment of premiums. For example, if only cell captive insurers could insure third party risks, traditional insurers would not be allowed to insure either first- or third-party risks, because they fall under neither definition.įinally, the tribunal noted that the Authority has powers under the Insurance Act to mitigate any perceived risks in respect of a traditional insurer underwriting first-party and third-party risks. The definition imposes neither obligations nor does it confer rights.” The interpretation advanced by the Authority would result in unbusinesslike results. The tribunal stated, “The definition section makes plain that the words would only bear the meaning ascribed to it by the legislature if the context so requires… The Authority elevates the definition of “first party risks” to a substantive statutory provision. The tribunal also disagreed with the Authority’s reliance on the definition of “first party risks” in section 1 of the Insurance Act to contend for an implied prohibition. The tribunal stated, “In our view, it is relevant that the legislature has not expressly prohibited ‘traditional’ insurers from underwriting first party risks, nor from underwriting first-party and third-party risks under the same licence.” It noted that there is no provision in the Act that expressly prohibits a traditional insurer from underwriting first-party risks. The tribunal disagreed with the Prudential Authority’s interpretation of the Insurance Act. The Authority also argued that a traditional insurer should not be permitted to conduct both first-party and third-party business under the same licence because of potential conflicts of interest. The Prudential Authority declined the application, on the grounds that the Insurance Act implicitly prohibits ‘traditional’ insurers (not captive or cell captive insurers) from underwriting both first-party and third-party risks. Abacus applied to the Prudential Authority to vary the Abacus Insurance licence to add further classes and sub-classes to the licence conditions for third party policyholder benefits. As a result, Pepkor Holdings wanted Abacus to underwrite the Pepkor Policy. The Pepkor Group no longer held an insurance licence. A March 2023 decision of the Financial Services Tribunal found that there is no implied prohibition in the Insurance Act on ‘traditional’ insurers (not cell) underwriting risks for both its own first party risks and third party risks.Ībacus Insurance Limited (“Abacus”), a traditional insurer, holds a non-life insurance licence, permitting it to underwrite third party risks.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |