Senior Citizen Claim: Deductible, Co-payment, Cataract and AYUSH Sub-limits
Mrs Kamala Iyer, 68, has held a senior citizen indemnity policy since 1 February 2022, renewed without break, sum insured ₹5,00,000. Terms: deductible ₹25,000 "each and every claim"; co-payment 20% for insureds above 60; cataract sub-limit ₹40,000 per eye, with day-care procedures covered; AYUSH treatment sub-limit 25% of sum insured per policy year, payable only at a government-recognised AYUSH hospital; 24-hour hospitalisation not required for listed day-care procedures. Her two-year pre-existing disease waiting period ended on 31 January 2024.
On 18 June 2025 she had day-care cataract surgery on the right eye at a NABH-accredited eye centre. The bill was ₹72,000, including an intraocular lens of ₹30,000.
On 9 September 2025 she was admitted for five days at a government-recognised Ayurvedic hospital for Panchakarma treatment of cervical spondylosis. The bill was ₹1,60,000, which included ₹40,000 for room and diet. She had been diagnosed with cervical spondylosis in 2020 and it was disclosed at proposal.
The insurer has admitted both claims in principle but disputes the amounts, and has applied the ₹25,000 deductible once, for the year, against the September claim only.
1. Compute the amount payable on each claim.
Read the worked answer
The deductible is "each and every claim", so it attaches to each of the two claims separately - the insurer's single application for the year is wrong, and it also wrongly deprives the insured of the deductible being absorbed against the June claim.
June claim (cataract, right eye)
- Billed ₹72,000, restricted to the cataract sub-limit of ₹40,000 per eye.
- Less deductible ₹25,000 → ₹15,000.
- Less 20% co-payment ₹3,000.
- Payable ₹12,000.
The intraocular lens is not separately carved out by this wording; had it been on a non-payable list or separately capped, the ₹30,000 lens charge would have been handled before applying the sub-limit, and the answer would change.
September claim (Panchakarma)
- Billed ₹1,60,000, restricted to the AYUSH sub-limit of 25% of ₹5,00,000 = ₹1,25,000.
- Less deductible ₹25,000 → ₹1,00,000.
- Less 20% co-payment ₹20,000.
- Payable ₹80,000.
Total payable: ₹92,000.
2. The insurer argues that the cataract claim is a pre-existing condition and that the Panchakarma admission is not a valid hospitalisation. Assess both objections.
Read the worked answer
Both objections fail on the facts of this file, but for different reasons.
Cataract: the policy has a two-year PED waiting period which ended on 31 January 2024, and the surgery was in June 2025 - well past it. In any case, a cataract that develops during the policy is not pre-existing at all; the insurer would need clinical records showing the condition was diagnosed and treated within the look-back period before inception. Absent such records, the objection is without basis. The stronger, valid point the insurer does have is the ₹40,000 per-eye sub-limit, which is a genuine restriction and has been applied.
Panchakarma: the policy expressly covers AYUSH treatment, the facility is government-recognised as the wording requires, and the admission was for five inpatient days - so the 24-hour rule is satisfied independently of the day-care list. The common but wrong argument that Ayurvedic treatment is "not medical treatment" has no footing where the policy schedules an AYUSH sub-limit; a scheduled benefit cannot be read out of the contract. What the insurer can legitimately examine is whether the ₹40,000 room and diet component is within any room-rent cap the wording imposes; none is stated here, so no proportionate deduction arises.
3. What advice would you give Mrs Iyer about the deductible, and what would you flag to the insurer's claims head?
Read the worked answer
To Mrs Iyer: the deductible is per claim, so she bears ₹25,000 twice over the year - ₹50,000 in total on these two claims. That is a feature of the policy she bought, not a penalty, and it is the reason a low-sum-insured senior policy is often poor value for small claims: on the ₹72,000 cataract bill she recovers only ₹12,000, about 17%. If she expects further treatment this year, she should ask whether the deductible can be commuted to a higher premium at renewal, and compare the cost of that against the ₹50,000 she has absorbed. She should also check the renewal guarantee position - a senior citizen policy in continuous force cannot be refused renewal on grounds of age or claims experience, though the premium and terms may be revised.
To the claims head: the single-application of the deductible is a systemic error, not a one-off, and it operates in the insurer's favour on the first claim while appearing generous on the second - a pattern that is easy to defend in isolation and hard to defend in aggregate. The file should be corrected, and the claims template audited for the distinction between "each and every claim" and "each policy year" deductibles, which are frequently confused at the processing desk.