Showing posts with label Subhash Chandra Vashishth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Subhash Chandra Vashishth. Show all posts

Monday, May 2, 2016

Private Insurance Contracts can't override fundamental rights of equality & health through exclusion clauses

Dear Colleagues,

Please refer to my earlier blog entry titled "Extra Premium or reduced insurance amount, both discriminatory against employees with disabilities- Delhi HC" wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had categorically come to a conclusion that charging extra premium from employees with disabilities was indeed a discrimination on the basis of disability and the court in its remarkable judgement directed the postal life insurance to provide equal insurance coverage and not charge extra premium from the employees with disabilities.

I had called that judgement  a milestone in the disability rights movement with far reaching implications not only in India but also beyond India and especially in European countries where the actuaries continue to discriminate against persons with disabilities by under-valuing their lives. 

In the instant case, the plaintiff  Jai Prakash Tayal, holding a mediclaim policy had filed a suit seeking payment of Rs. 5 lakh spent on his treatment while the Insurance firm had denied mediclaim saying “genetic disease is not payable as per policy genetic exclusion clauses".

The trial court presided by Hon'ble Additional District Judge, Delhi Dr. (Ms.) Kamini Lau lambasted the United India Insurance Company, a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) of Govt. of India, for rejecting the mediclaim of a person for heart ailment on the ground of genetic disease exclusion clause. 
News Clipping from Times of India Delhi Edition 02 May 2016

Adding that the clause was "arbitrary , discriminatory and unfair" the Judge said, “I hold that a genetic disease exclusion clause in a mediclaim insurance policy, which totally excludes the grant of insurance in case of genetic diseases, is liable to be struck down being violative of the constitutional mandate, the fundamental underlying constitutional scheme, policy of the state and public good.

The plaintiff had told the court that he had already taken two claims for the same treatment and, therefore, a third claim for the same disease was not liable to be rejected. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and said he was entitled to the amount. It observed that a person suffering from a genetic disease is as much in need of a medical insurance cover as others and in fact the liability qua them is more.

“No person can be discriminated or deprived of state protection in case of an ailment, be it genetic or acquired. The courts of law are required to interpret the provisions of the private contracts in the light of these constitutional obligations,“ the court said.

The court held that good health is not a privilege but a justiciable fundamental right and lamented that healthcare finances have a poor record as only 4% of the national budget is spent on it. “The time has come that India catches up with this alternative model of allocating resources and funding to its public health programmes,“ the judge said. 

Related News from Times of India :  Court pulls up insurer, cites right to health







Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Delhi High Court directs the private schools to make their schools barrier free & inclusive

Dear Colleagues,

After its order directing all private and government schools in Delhi to appoint Special educators for children with disabilities and provide necessary teaching and learning material earlier, the Delhi High Court, on a petition by Social Jurist has ordered to make all private schools barrier free for the disabled. It was brought to the notice of the court that private schools do not have adequate physical and academic infrastructure for children with disabilities and thus children forced in to these institution continued to face discrimination.

It was pointed out in the petition that there are 2039 unaided recognized private schools (1260 recognized by Directorate of Education (DoE), GNCTD and 779 recognized by MCD) and 258 aided recognized private schools (214 aided by DoE, GNCTD and 44 aided by MCD) in Delhi and most of them do not have the provisions of basic physical as well as academic infrastructure, including Special Educators as required for the education of the children with disabilities; These schools also did not provide barrier free infrastructure to the children with disabilities. This violated Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 of such children as guaranteed under Articles 14,15,21, 21-A & 38 of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, U.N. Convention on Rights of Child (1989) and U.N. Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

The bench of Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw while hearing the petition W.P.(C) No.4618/2011 titled  Social Jurist, A civil rights group versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi directed all recognised, aided and unaided private schools in Delhi to appoint special educators and to make their buildings/school premises barrier-free for children with disabilities. The Director of Education has been directed to ensure that the Court Orders were followed and to de-recognise any school that has not made its premises disabled-friendly.

The court has now granted time up until March 31, 2013, to the schools to make their premises barrier-free and to appoint special educators with the next two years.

“Schools where children with special needs are already admitted or will be admitted hereafter shall immediately make provision for special educators...no school shall refuse admission to children with disability for the reason of not employing special educators or not providing barrier-free access on the school premises,” the court order says.

The court has also clarified that the capital expenditure on making the school building and premises barrier free so as to allow free movement to children with disability has to be incurred by the schools from their own coffers and is not reimbursable by the Government as Section 19 of the RTE Act requires all schools, as a condition for their recognition, to provide a barrier free access in their buildings.

The Court ordered that the schools where children with special needs are already admitted or will be admitted hereafter shall immediately make provision for Special Educators and further ordain that no school shall refuse admission to children with disability for the reason of not employing Special Educators or not providing barrier free access in the school premises

It may be pertinent to mention here that earlier a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in matter Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 163 (2009) DLT 489 had directed the GNCTD as well schools run by local bodies namely NDMC, MCD and Cantonment Board to ensure that each school shall have at least two special educators and that necessary teaching aids and reading materials are provided to children with disability. However, this did not cover the Private schools.

Those who want to go through the detailed order, Click here. W.P.(C) No.4618/2011

Media Coverage


regards
Subhash Chandra Vashishth
Advocate

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Delhi High Court directs the private schools to make their schools barrier free & inclusive

Dear Colleagues,

After its earlier order directing all private and government schools in Delhi to appoint Special educators for children with disabilities and provide necessary teaching and learning material, the Delhi High Court, on a petition by Social Jurist has now ordered to make all private schools barrier free for the disabled. 

It was brought to the notice of the court that private schools do not have adequate physical and academic infrastructure for children with disabilities and thus children forced in to these institution continued to face discrimination.

It was pointed out in the petition that there are 2039 unaided recognized private schools (1260 recognized by Directorate of Education (DoE), GNCTD and 779 recognized by MCD) and 258 aided recognized private schools (214 aided by DoE, GNCTD and 44 aided by MCD) in Delhi and most of them do not have the provisions of basic physical as well as academic infrastructure, including Special Educators as required for the education of the children with disabilities; These schools also did not provide barrier free infrastructure to the children with disabilities. This violated Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 of such children as guaranteed under Articles 14,15,21, 21-A & 38 of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, U.N. Convention on Rights of Child (1989) and U.N. Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

The bench of Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw while hearing the petition W.P.(C) No.4618/2011 titled  Social Jurist, A civil rights group versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi directed all recognised, aided and unaided private schools in Delhi to appoint special educators and to make their buildings/school premises barrier-free for children with disabilities. The Director of Education has been directed to ensure that the Court Orders were followed and to de-recognise any school that has not made its premises disabled-friendly.

The court has now granted time up until March 31, 2013, to the schools to make their premises barrier-free and to appoint special educators with the next two years.

“Schools where children with special needs are already admitted or will be admitted hereafter shall immediately make provision for special educators...no school shall refuse admission to children with disability for the reason of not employing special educators or not providing barrier-free access on the school premises,” the court order says.

The court has also clarified that the capital expenditure on making the school building and premises barrier free so as to allow free movement to children with disability has to be incurred by the schools from their own coffers and is not reimbursable by the Government as Section 19 of the RTE Act requires all schools, as a condition for their recognition, to provide a barrier free access in their buildings.

The Court ordered that the schools where children with special needs are already admitted or will be admitted hereafter shall immediately make provision for Special Educators and further ordain that no school shall refuse admission to children with disability for the reason of not employing Special Educators or not providing barrier free access in the school premises. 

It may be pertinent to mention here that earlier a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in matter Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 163 (2009) DLT 489 had directed the GNCTD as well schools run by local bodies namely NDMC, MCD and Cantonment Board to ensure that each school shall have at least two special educators and that necessary teaching aids and reading materials are provided to children with disability. However, this did not cover the Private schools.

Those who want to go through the detailed order, Click here. W.P.(C) No.4618/2011

Media Coverage


regards
Adv Subhash Vashishth

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Delhi High Court strikes down arbitrary Writer / Scribe Guidelines of ICAI

Dear Colleagues,


Please refer to my earlier post titled  ICAI imposes arbitrary Writers / Scribes Conditions for Students with Disabilities to know the background.

In the instant case, the examinees with disabilities of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), who were due to write their exams tomorrow onwards i.e. 03rd May 2012, received  the Admit Card and impugned writer guidelines on 26th April 2012, just days before the examination with weekly holiday in between. Despite the fact that this guideline titled; “Guidelines and Procedure to be followed regarding granting of Writer/ Extra Time to the Differently Abled Candidates” was finalized by the Examination Committee in its January 2012 meeting, the same was never put up on the website while there exist detailed instructions for examinees taking CA exams this year.

The examinees found these guidelines discriminatory and arbitrary and against the settled norms of writer guidelines.  This amounted to discouraging the students with disabilities from appearing in the forthcoming exams. The examinees immediately contacted the Addl Secretary (Exam) who told the candidates that he could not do anything since this was the decision of the Examination Committee taken during January 2012.

The examinees then contacted the author seeking help in resolving this issue so that they could appear in the examination with a proper writer.  It is pertinent to mention that the examinees with disabilities fearing retribution from the ICAI did not want to come out in open against the Institution.  The author also telephonically contacted the Addl. Secretary above, but he only promised that “he will look in to it”.

Sensing the non-serious attitude of the officer, the author immediately filed a complaint before the Chief Commissioner- Disabilities on 27th April 2012 seeking an urgent intervention in view of the exam starting 03rd of May 2012.

The Dy. Chief Commissioner, having verified the facts and the documents on record, immediately sent his order dated 30.04.2012 by email & Fax to the ICAI directing them to remove the unreasonable conditions for the writer to be used by candidates with disabilities and sought an action taken report by email/fax. 

The author has been following up since then with the ICAI but to no avail. The Institute  neither gave any assurance nor  withdrew the impugned guidelines.

Since no student was ready to come forward in open against the mighty Institution set up under an Act of Parliament in 1949 and the second largest accounting body in the whole world, the author was forced to become petitioner in an urgent "public interest litigation" filed before the Delhi High Court yesterday morning praying quashing of the impugned guidelines and staying the examinations/ making proper arrangements for the conducting examinations of persons with disabilities who may be using the writers/ scribes based on the earlier guidelines in the interest of justice. I must thank my associate Pankaj Sinha, a visually challenged lawyer at Human Rights Law Network for arguing the matter before the Hon'ble Court.

The double bench of Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri. AK Sikri and Hon'ble Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw directed the Institute to relax all three impugned conditions i.e.
  • Writer to be not more than 20 years, 
  • Only one writer to write all exams and lastly 
  • relative can not write the exams.
The Hon'ble court also verbally asked the media people present in the court to give wide coverage to this issue in national dailies so that it reaches all affected students and their families. 

Respecting the autonomy of the Institution, the Hon'ble Court clarified in its order,  "This order is only applicable for the current examination (May 2012 Exam.) and the Examination Committee of the ICAI  who is meeting to discuss this issue on 13 May 2012 will be entitled to take its own decision after considering the difficulties pointed out by the petitioner in this petition. This petition shall also be placed before the Examination Committee and treated as representation of the petitioner and the aforesaid arrangement made by us for the present examination would not be reflective of any final opinion in this matter."

At the same time, it also addressed the fears of the petitioner by ordering, "We make it clear that in case any amendments in the Guidelines are made by the respondent ICAI pursuant to the recommendations of the Examination Committee and the petitioner still feels aggrieved thereagainst, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Courts again."

Documents available for Download

I am providing following documents that may come handy for parents, fellow activists and students to take up similar matters of discrimination before various forums.

(a)  Copy of Order of the Chief Commissioner -Disabilities in   PDF File.

(b)  Copy of the PIL Petition to the High Court of Delhi (Brief)  in PDF File 

(c)  Copy of the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in PDF File

Reflections of Stakeholders

Since morning I have been receiving thank you messages from parents, relatives, students, NGOs for this relief from the court of Hon'ble Chief Justice. Many parents while talking to me on phone broke down and expressed that they were feeling very helpless since they couldn't do much against the Institution in such a short span when three days before the exam it hands them such whimsical guidelines aimed at discouraging their wards to appear for the exams. I want to say to all such parents, affected persons not to accept injustices quietly. Please raise your voice. We have a very supportive Chief Commissioner- Disabilities as well as Judiciary (High Court) to ensure that justice is rendered to the needy, provided their doors are knocked in time.

Acknowledgments

I want to take this opportunity to thank  Shri TD Dhariyal, the Dy. Chief Commissioner- Disabilities and his desk officer Shri. Rajeev Malhotra, for being prompt in verifying the matter and issuing an immediate order to the ICAI and constantly following up the matter at my request. I also want to thank Mr. Pankaj Sinha, from HRLN for mentioning this matter out of turn before the Hon'ble Chief Justice at my request and then arguing the matter before the court successfully.

Media Coverage




HC asks ICAI to relax norms for disabled
TIMES NEWS NETWORK 

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Wednesday directed the Institute of Charted Accountants in India (ICAI) to relax conditions for disabled candidates appearing for the CA examination that began on Wednesday. 

 While hearing a PIL seeking quashing of fresh guidelines of the ICAI for the examinees with disabilities appearing for this year’s CA examination, a division bench of acting Chief Justice A K Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw directed the institute to allow a relative of a disabled candidate to act as a writer during the examination. 

The court, however, said the writers for disabled students should not be from commerce background. In its order, the court also directed ICAI, which conducts the examination, to allow the examinees to change the writer throughout the examination that will last till May 17. 

Making it clear that this court’s order is only for this year’s examination, the bench asked the Examination Committee of ICAI to consider the issue and make necessary amendments in the guidelines for the examinations in future.

Other Coverage:












Thursday, April 26, 2012

ICAI imposes arbitrary Writers / Scribes Conditions for Students with Disabilities

Dear Colleagues,
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is organizing its annual exams starting 03rd May 2012. It has provided “INSTRUCTIONS TO EXAMINEES – MAY, 2012” at link: http://220.227.161.86/26540exam15942.pdf. These instructions are utterly silent on the conditions for  Scribes allowed for Persons with Disabilities as per law, though they are exhaustive on other conditions to be met /observed for the examination.

This time the candidates with disabilities have been surreptitiously sent a three page document titled “Guidelines and Procedure to be followed regarding granting of Writer/ Extra Time to the Differently Abled Candidates”. Coincidentally, this document has not been provided  on the Institute website though is purported to have been adopted by Examination Committee during January 2012 and effective from May 2012 examinations. 

These impugned guidelines are illogical, arbitrary and work against the spirit of The Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 that aims to ensure equal opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full participation of persons with disabilities since they insist the following conditions among others:
  1. The writer should not be above 20 years of age as on the date of commencement of a particular examination for which the writer’s assistance would be utilized by a candidate (for instance 02nd May 2012 for May 2012 CA Examinations)
  2. The writer should be the same person for all the papers of an examination and no request for change of writer shall be permitted.
  3. The writer should not be a relative of the candidate for whom he / she is acting as a writer.
The students with disabilities are in shock as they can not meet such arbitrary guidelines forced upon them. However, most students are not willing to come openly  against the institute for fear of a backlash which may spoil their career.


None of the earlier guideline (for 2007 or 2010 exams) which are available on the ICAI’s website at link: http://www.icai.org/new_post.html?post_id=639 do not contain any of such arbitrary and illogical conditions. The conditions put forth are unreasonable & discriminatory against persons with disabilities and defy the objective and mandate of the Disabilities Act.

I have been approached by several students who have failed to find writers below the age of 20 and are most likely to fall in to trap of missing their examinations despite their good preparation for the same.

Also since this is an exam season and most teen-aged students who may be eligible to act as writer as per the eligibility condition put forth by the new guideline,  are busy in their exams hence it is next to impossible to meet such a unreasonable guideline. Moreover, the relatives have been barred from acting as a writer. I am wondering as to who would then come forward to help (even at a cost!) to write for them. They are bound to fail due to lack of level playing field!

The condition that write should be same for all the papers spread over a length of period is also a detrimental to the interest of the examinee  since the teenager, who may agree to write the exam for the disabled student may have his own exam clashing. Then most students in graduation second or third year are more than 20 years.

Such attitude with the students with disabilities is an open discrimination and a discouragement for them to enroll for the course and not only is against the mandate of the Disabilities Act but also Article 14 of the Constitution of India that ensures equality to all. The names of the students have been withheld on their request since they fear revengeful action on the part of ICAI.

I have taken up the matter with the Chief Commissioner- Disabilities and hope that good sense will prevail over the ICAI and they would withdraw the unreasonable guideline.


If you remember, recently, several organisations working for the Persons with disabilities in India (especially Low Vision and Blind), to which I have been a party myself, have suggested an exhaustive document titled "Uniform Guidelines for Conducting Examinations (Practicals and/or Theory) for Blind and Low Vision Persons". These have been sent to Ministry of Social Justice for their acceptance. In all probability these would be accepted since the content is the revised edition of the draft guidelines discussed in the Meeting of the State Commissioners Disabilities in the year 2008, if I correctly remember hence has a principal approval from the authorities.


I suggest the ICAI to accept these guidelines in toto for implementation in all their examinations (including the one in May 2012) and take a lead in being the first progressive and disabled friendly institution of the Government of India.


regards,
Subhash Chandra Vashishth
Advocate- Disability Rights

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Extra Premium or Reduced Insurance Cover, both discriminatory against Disabled - Delhi HC [Judgement Included]

Dear Colleagues,

Refer to my earlier posts on 02 Sep 2009, 09 October 2009 and 21 January 2010 on the issue since the matter has been pending before the Delhi High Court. There were several occasions that the Court was about to pronounce judgement however, Union of India bought time on each hearing with a promise that they are amending the rules to remove the discriminatory practices against the persons with disabilities (read employees) in insurance sector and dragged the case to 2012. However, at the end, the court got infuriated the way the Government turned turtle on their own statement before the court and tried to justify the discrimination of extra premium.

The brief background of the case

In the instant case, the petitioner Mr. Vikas Gupta, through a public interest litigation, filed by  Mr. Pankaj Sinha, a lawyer with visual impairment from Human Rights Law Network,  brought to the notice of the court that the Postal Life Insurance Policy issued for the benefit of government employees was inherently discriminatory against employees with disabilities. It allowed the maximum sum insured for employees with disabilities to only Rs. 1 lac while their non-disabled counterparts enjoyed a maximum insurance cover of 5 lacs. Not only this, the employees with disabilities were paying a higher premium than those without disabilities.

Thus through this litigation, the petitioner sought parity in the maximum sum assured and premium charged from the employees with disabilities in comparison to the employees without disabilities. When the matter came up for hearing and notice was issued, Postal Life insurance realizing their follies, issued a notification during pendency of the petition raising the maximum insurance coverage for employees with disabilities to that of non-disabled employees i.e. up to Rs. 5 lakhs. However, they continued to charge extra premium from the employees with disabilities.

The petitioner argued that the extra premium charged was without any scientific justification. When the court sought explanation from PLIC, the Additional Solicitor General stated before the court that they do not discriminate on the basis of disability and there is no extra premium charged.

However, later Union of India turned turtle on their statement and justified the extra premium from the employees on the blanket ground of disabilities and argued that the Insurance Policy was a contract between the insurer and the insured. That in the insurance business a pool was created through contributions made by persons seeking to protect themselves from common risk. Premium was collected by insurance companies which also act as trustee to the pool. Any loss to the insured in case of happening of an uncertain event was paid out of this pool. It worked on the principle of risk sharing. Therefore, prejudice would be caused to the normal insured persons in case of any casualty of the disabled persons. As disabled persons are more prone to accidental risks as compared to normal persons and the amount which is to be paid to the family of the deceased would be paid out of the same pool.  Hence, it is justified to charge extra premium from the employees with disabilities. They also argued that extra premium payable by the disabled person is marginally different from the premium payable by normal persons. Further they justified the extra premium on the ground that the extent of handicap differs from one person to another and that they would continue to charge differential premium decided upon the health profile of the individual proponent.

The petitioner argued that the extra premium clause has no scientific base nor can be justified by any legal enactment or any empirical study. On the contrary, such a standalone stipulation for Persons with Disabilities in form of a special scheme in the Postal Life Insurance for Government employees was discriminatory, non-inclusive, unjust and violates principles of natural justice of equity and fairness and above all it ran against the mandate of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 and the UN Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities that India is a proud signatory to. Further, it specifically violated Articles 3 and 25(e) of the UN Convention.

The petitioner accepted the rationale of PLI to the extent that any loss to the insured in case of happening of an uncertain event is paid out of this pool and that it worked on the Principle of risk sharing. However the petitioner strongly refuted that disabled persons are more prone to accidental risks as compared to normal persons. On the contrary, the petitioner argued, there was no empirical study or data to support or substantiate such a baseless, false and biased view which only reinforced the stereotypes about persons with disability and their proneness to accident.

Petitioner argued that the right to equality and non-discrimination were inalienable rights which couldn't be taken away by any contract and charging extra premium from employees with disabilities was a direct discrimination with them on the basis of disability which was in direct conflict with Article 2 of UNCRPD.

The petitioner also argued that the justification of health profile put forward by the respondents was faulty for they seem to treat disability as a negative health profile. It was stressed that living with disability was distinct from suffering from a life threatening disease, while the respondent seemed to consider both as synonymous. An employee with visual impairment or with hearing impairment or with neurological impairment also enjoyed good health like anybody else. Therefore, an employee living with a disability would not mean that he / she was suffering from a disease and prone to life risks or susceptible to die prematurely. Such a conclusion on the part of respondent was illogical, arbitrary, had no empirical base and without any understanding of disability, hence, such a conclusion was required to be struck down.


Hon’ble High court in the instant case agreed that charging extra premium from employees with disabilities was indeed a discrimination on the basis of disability and therefore through this remarkable judgement directed the postal life insurance to provide equal insurance coverage and not charge extra premium from the employees with disabilities.
The Road Ahead

I see this judgment  as a milestone in the disability rights movement with far-reaching implications not only in India but also beyond India and especially in European countries where the Actuaries continue to discriminate against persons with disabilities by under-valuing their lives. However, India, its Courts and the persons with disabilities are very progressive on this front and the western countries can follow suit at least on this count.

This is just a beginning. We need a well devised future strategy  to dismantle the entire regime of discrimination that is prevailing in the insurance sector and the immediate challenges are:

(a) The insurance sector still discriminates on the basis of etiology of the disability i.e. causes of disability, whether it is from birth and after birth; neurological or physical and  then rates their lives accordingly,  which in my considered view has again no scientific base.

(b) The persons with neurological disabilities are still not allowed any insurance policy and needs to be challenged.

(c) PLI is an insurance scheme for the benefit of government employees hence, it will cover a very small section of persons with disabilities. Those who are outside the government jobs especially those in rural areas are far away from reaping the benefits of insurance. Though the judgement challenges the principles that have so far formed the basis for denying the  insurance to the disabled.

(d) The Actuaries who are in the business of assessing the life risks are not aware of the real challenges and the lives of the persons with disabilities and they continue to live in their own world and decide on their own whims, the risk calculation of the life of a person with disabilities. They need to be sensitized and made aware not only about the lives of persons with disabilities but also the rights regime that UNCRPD brings.

(e) The entire literature on insurance that I had to read while pursuing this case from outside, I found it reinforced the stereotypes about persons with disabilities and their proneness to accident! Hence, we need new literature for future actuaries to understand that Disability can not be treated always as a negative health profile and that living with disability was distinct from suffering from a life threatening disease.

(f) There is a need to raise awareness that a person with visual impairment or with hearing impairment or with neurological impairment also enjoys good health like anybody else.

(g) The rules of Insurance sector needs to be changed in light of this judgement and applied across the sector. All insurance  issuing companies - be it private or government have to factor in the principles of this judgement and make amends.

(h) The discrimination continues unabated in not just in `life insurance, sector but in health insurance and other insurance products on the offer. This needs to be addressed on priority.

(j) We need to take this awareness to the most marginalized persons with disabilities in rural areas through several means.  

I am sure we all are up for it and would take this to its logical end.

regards

Subhash Chandra Vashishth
Advocate-Disability Rights