Bank Of Baroda,
Baroda Corporate Centre,
BKC , Mumbai-400051
22nd Oct.2018
Respected sir,
Health Insurance Policy declared by the bank for the year 2018-19 for bank retirees
Request for reconsideration of exorbitant premium amount and some other conditions enumerated in the policy
In respect of above, I advise having signed the consent letter authorizing the bank to debit amount of premium to my account. on 21st Oct 2018 I authorize to the bank to debit my account But I wish to express my grievance that the bank is absolutely insensitive to the financial problems and health conditions of the retiree who have served the bank for 35 to 40 years. Initially, the bank had been accepting its liability towards the retirees till 2015 but in due course of time for reasons best known to itself unilaterally decided to avoid its liability and presented a scheme for health insurance with a premium amount of
Rs. 7494.00 which has now been hiked extraordinarily to
28792.00 for retired officers
and Rs.21595.00 for retired award staff an assured amount of Rs. 4.00 and 3.00 lacs respectively WHEREAS Rs18270.00 and
Rs 13703.00 for working officers and award staff respectively for the year 2018-19.
Obviously, the amount fixed for the retirees is disproportionate to the amount of their pension which has not been considered for up-dation from the last 25 years. Rather, it is impossible to pay for those who retired before 2006 and put the retirees in such a difficult situation that neither they can afford premium nor they afford to exit from the scheme.
In addition to the unreasonable amount of premium , there are some other anomalies which need your immediate and serious attention for review as under:
1. The scheme of health insurance was formulated in the year 2015 by signing a
joint note with the unions of serving award staff and officers. The retired employees / officers were found nowhere in the picture. The banks gave its mandate to the IBA to negotiate the premium and other conditions with the UIICO in association with UFBU but surprisingly, the banks never felt it necessary to give its mandate to IBA for updation of pension. The banks have unjustifiably partially and selectively dealing with the
retirees issue.
2. The amount of premium for working employees and retirees have been illogically fixed i.e. lesser premium for the working employees covering spouse and his children with parents at a lower premium than that of retirees covering only spouse. Moreover, the premium for retiree is the same even if the spouse has expired.
3. The premium with domiciliary facility is so high that it is equal to 7-8 months pension of old retirees and for 2-3 month pension for others. It seems as if , the premium at such high range has been fixed deliberately planned to discourage the retirees to opt for this scheme.
4. The amount of premium has been increased but the bed charges has been reduced from Rs.5000.00 to Rs. 4000.00 which is neither justified nor logical as these charges have increased at most hospitals. It should be maintained at old level of Rs.5000.00.
5. In the past, it has been experienced that the benefit of 100% cashless policy is not extended to the retiree patient during hospitalisation and some expenses are denied which have to be paid by the retiree before being discharged from the hospital. In this respect, I wish to invite your attention towards a condition That “ in the event of any claim becoming admissible under the scheme, the bank will reimburse the amount of such expense as would fall short under different heads mentioned below and as are reasonable and medically necessary incurred thereof by or on behalf of such employee.”
Obviously, the spirit behind the above provision is that the patient should not bear any expense out of his pocket during hospitalized for treatment while insured under the cashless policy of the bank. Any amount , denied by the insurance company should be reimbursed directly by the
bank and the patient should not face any harassment at the time of being discharged mlmfrom the hospital. .
6. Now, the last but not the least point of objection is that though we have consented for the offer given by the bank but it is only due
to the fact that we had no option and no adequate time to consider and lodge our grievances. In principal, it had always been the liability of the employer to take care of the health of its retirees in their old age. Iwould like to place the example of the government of India who generously take care of their retirees for the whole life and for unlimited amount of expenditure incurred for treatment on one time payment depending upon their status and designation at the time of their retirement. The government of India has also introduced “Ayushman Bharat” scheme for the economically backward population of the country which evidences and testify my logic that the employer and government are socially and legally bound to look after the health of poor and old age persons.
In view of the foregoing, I request to your good self to reconsider and review the scheme of insurance and policy of the bank in the changed socio economic scenario when the medical care has become a very expensive feature and it is out of the reach of the pensioners. The bank must own its responsibility and bear at least 25% of the total premium including super top up premium and the remaining 75% with the formula that 50% of the 75% be charged to our pension fund to ensure relief to the retirees and remaining 50% of the 75% from the pensioners account.
I am fully confident that the Bank will give due consideration for redressal of the aforesaid grievances.
REGARDS
DHARAM SINGH
NEW DELHI
+91 9810900536
____________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment