Any group health policy which contains provisions for the payment by the insurer of benefits for expenses incurred on account of hospital, nursing, medical, dental or surgical services, home health care or health supportive services for members of the family or dependents of a person in the insured group may provide for the continuation of such benefit provisions, or any part or parts thereof, after the death of the person in the insured group. The Commissioner may, in the discretion of the Commissioner, require the form of each certificate proposed to be delivered in this state under a group health policy not made under the laws of this state to be filed with the Commissioner by the insurer for informational purposes only.
The traditional law was very strict and third parties had no redress of any manner if they were affected. However, in modern times the doctrine of privity has been relaxed to a large extent.
Now third parties can claim compensation provided he is an intended beneficiary under Acceptance indian contract act 1982 contract, and infringement is proved.
This paper analyses the evolution of the doctrine of privity, taking into consideration the law in various countries, for largely focusing on England and India.
Thought the position in various countries is now similar, if not the same, it was not the same when the rule came into being. The most important questions to be considered were whether a third party could acquire rights, or incur obligations, to a contract to which he or she is not a party?
These questions were highly prevalent in England from 17th to 20th century. Under Common Law, the answer to these questions was no. It was developed by the end of 19th century that third parties were necessarily strangers to contract and hence could neither acquire the rights nor incur obligations upon any party to a contract to which they themselves were not a party.
After establishing the position in England, the student tries to discuss the position of the concept of Privity, in detail, in the Country of India, mostly with the help of landmark case laws, changing the course of the rule despite of the very high influence of the English Laws and cultures on the Indian laws.
Then, the student tries to look into the position held by this concept in other major countries of the world. If A makes a contract with B, he comes under a legal obligation to pay damages if he fails to keep his promise. The enforceability or liability as regards this contract lies firmly in the hands of A and B to the exclusion of others, this is the foundation of the doctrine of privity of contract.
The doctrine of privity of contract is that a contract cannot confer rights or impose those obligations arising under it, on any person except the parties to it. Atkinson [iii]its foundations had been laid by the English courts over the years, starting from as early as the end of 16th century.
The first recorded case of such an instance was decided upon in This was the case of Levettv. In this case, a father brought an action of assumpsit upon a promise made directly to him that marriage money would be paid to his son. Norton [vii] which was decided in the year of But the objection made by the defendant party, which was relied upon the case of Levettv.
And although it were objected that the father was at the charge for the curing the son of his wounds, yet, because it was a thing he was a thing he not compelled unto, it is no cause why he should maintain this action. But, after the marriage, the defendant failed to pay the required sum to the son which resulted in the plaintiff bringing and action in assumpsit.
This claim was rejected by the Court of Common Pleas. Poole [x] a son promised his father that, in return for his father not selling a wood, he would pay pounds to his sister. The father refrained from selling the wood, but the son did not pay.
|2- Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014||The room glittered with crystal and silver, pineapples, lobsters and champagne.|
|U.S. Code Toolbox||History of English contract law and History of contract law The Court of Common Pleas here in was, with the Court of King's Benchthe common law court that heard early cases about broken agreements in debt.|
|English contract law - Wikipedia||The study of this aspect, although inviting, is beyond the scope of this paper.|
|Law of Contracts||Try out our Premium Member services:|
It was held that the sister could sue, on the ground that the consideration and promise to the father may well have extended to her on account of the tie of blood between them.
It took a few more centuries for the rule to take its form as we know it. A study of a few cases decided in the 18th century and the 19th are essential in order to reach that establishment.
Vernon [xi]Buller J said that, independently of the rules prevailing in mercantile transactions, 13 if one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third, the third may maintain an action upon it.
Waugh [xii]the tutors and curators of an infant, C, executed an agreement for a lease with A, for an annual rent to be paid to C. It was held that C could sue on the instrument, even though he was not a party to it. In spite of these cases favouring actions by third party beneficiaries, it is not accurate to say that the third party rule was entirely a 19th century innovation.
There were other 16th and 17th century cases where a third party was denied an action on the grounds that the promisee was the only person entitled to bring the action [xiii]. There were also cases where the reason given why the third party could not sue was because he was a stranger to the consideration, that is, he had given nothing in return for the promise [xiv].
These cases typically involved the following facts. B owed money to C.An agency offering a procurement requirement for potential award pursuant to this subsection shall, upon the request of the Administration, promptly submit to the Administration a written statement detailing the method used by the agency to estimate the current fair market price for such contract, identifying the information, studies, analyses, and other data used by such agency.
The doctrine of privity means that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person except the parties to it.
Short title.—This Act may be called the Indian Contract Act, —This Act may be called the Indian Contract Act, " Effect of acceptance of performance at time other than that agreed upon.—If, in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise at the time agreed, the promisee accepts.
Similarly, even the Indian Contract Act, once the offeree accepts the proposal made by the offerer, it is said to be an Acceptance. Hence, in the simplest of terms, assent or consent to an offer is known as Acceptance. Indian Contract Act, pdf - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online.5/5(1).
as an advance received and as allowed by any sectoral regulator or in accordance with directions of Central or State Government; as an advance for subscription towards publication, whether in print or in electronic to be adjusted against receipt of such publications;.