Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 257 views

    Philamcare Health Systems Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    kamiruhyun
    This case involves a dispute over a health care agreement between Philamcare Health Systems and Julita Trinos. [1] Philamcare denied Trinos' claim for benefits when her husband suffered a heart attack, alleging concealment of his medical history. [2] The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Trinos. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the health care agreement was a contract of insurance, and that Philamcare failed to follow proper procedures to rescind the contract based on concealment. [4] It also found that Trinos was entitled to reimbursement since she paid the hospital expenses and the agreement was a contract of indemnity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Philamcare Health Systems Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    kamiruhyun
    257 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over a health care agreement between Philamcare Health Systems and Julita Trinos. [1] Philamcare denied Trinos' claim for benefits when her husband suffered a heart attack, alleging concealment of his medical history. [2] The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Trinos. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the health care agreement was a contract of insurance, and that Philamcare failed to follow proper procedures to rescind the contract based on concealment. [4] It also found that Trinos was entitled to reimbursement since she paid the hospital expenses and the agreement was a contract of indemnity.

    Original Description:

    insurance law

    Original Title

    Philamcare Health Systems vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over a health care agreement between Philamcare Health Systems and Julita Trinos. [1] Philamcare denied Trinos' claim for benefits when her husband suffered a heart attack, alleging concealment of his medical history. [2] The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Trinos. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the health care agreement was a contract of insurance, and that Philamcare failed to follow proper procedures to rescind the contract based on concealment. [4] It also found that Trinos was entitled to reimbursement since she paid the hospital expenses and the agreement was a contract of indemnity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    257 views2 pages

    Philamcare Health Systems Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    kamiruhyun
    This case involves a dispute over a health care agreement between Philamcare Health Systems and Julita Trinos. [1] Philamcare denied Trinos' claim for benefits when her husband suffered a heart attack, alleging concealment of his medical history. [2] The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Trinos. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the health care agreement was a contract of insurance, and that Philamcare failed to follow proper procedures to rescind the contract based on concealment. [4] It also found that Trinos was entitled to reimbursement since she paid the hospital expenses and the agreement was a contract of indemnity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PHILAMCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS

    G.R. No. 125678. March 18, 2002

    Facts: Ernani Trinos, deceased husband of respondent Julita Trinos, applied for a health care coverage
    with petitioner. During the period of his coverage, Ernani suffered a heart attack. Respondent tried
    to claim the benefits under the health care agreement. However, petitioner denied her claim saying
    that the Health Care Agreement was void, that there was a concealment regarding Ernanis medical
    history. Thus, respondent paid the hospitalization expenses herself. Later, respondent’s husband
    died. She instituted with the RTC an action for damages against petitioner. RTC ruled in favor of the
    respondent and was affirmed by the CA. Petitioner argues that the agreement grants living benefits,
    such as medical check-ups and hospitalization which a member may immediately enjoy so long as he
    is alive upon effectivity of the agreement until its expiration one-year thereafter. Petitioner also
    points out that only medical and hospitalization benefits are given under the agreement without any
    indemnification, unlike in an insurance contract where the insured is indemnified for his loss.

    Issue:

    a. Whether or not the health care agreement is a contract of insurance

    b. Whether or not petitioner has the right to rescind the contract by virtue of concealment on the
    part of the respondent’s husband

    c. Whether or not the spouse being not the legal wife is entitled to reimbursement

    Held:

    a. Yes. The insurable interest of respondent’s husband in obtaining the health care agreement was
    his own health. The health care agreement was in the nature of non-life insurance, which is primarily
    a contract of indemnity.Once the member incurs hospital, medical or any other expense arising from
    sickness, injury or other stipulated contingent, the health care provider must pay for the same to the
    extent agreed upon under the contract.

    b. No. A concealment whether intentional or unintentional entitles the injured party to rescind a
    contract of insurance. Cancellation of health care agreements as in insurance policies require the
    concurrence of the following conditions: Prior notice of cancellation to insured; Notice must be
    based on the occurrence after effective date of the policy of one or more of the grounds mentioned;
    Must be in writing, mailed or delivered to the insured at the address shown in the policy; Must state
    the grounds relied upon provided in Section 64 of the Insurance Code and upon request of insured,
    to furnish facts on which cancellation is based. None of the conditions was made by the petitioner.
    Being a contract of adhesion, the terms of an insurance contract are to be construed strictly against
    the party which prepared the contract - the insurer.

    Under the title Claim procedures of expenses, the petitioner had twelve months from the date of
    issuance of the Agreement within which to contest the membership of the patient if he had previous
    ailment of asthma, and six months from the issuance of the agreement if the patient was sick of
    diabetes or hypertension. The periods having expired, the defense of concealment or
    misrepresentation no longer lie.

    c. Yes. The health care agreement is in the nature of a contract of indemnity. Hence, payment should
    be made to the party who incurred the expenses. It is not controverted that respondent paid all the
    hospital and medical expenses. She is therefore entitled to reimbursement. The records adequately
    prove the expenses incurred by respondent for the deceased’s hospitalization, medication and the
    professional fees of the attending physicians.

    You might also like