Facts
Since 1 May 1993, C. has been insured with FAMA, a health and accident insurance fund. Between April 1995 and March 1996, C. did not pay certain contributions, including for her supplementary insurance. FAMA therefore issued two payment orders against her. C. filed opposition to these payment orders. FAMA rejected the oppositions by two decisions. C. then appealed against these decisions to the Vaud Cantonal Insurance Tribunal. This tribunal declared the appeal inadmissible with regard to the contributions owed for the supplementary insurance, considering that these claims are of a civil nature and that FAMA must assert them through legal action and not through an administrative decision. FAMA filed an administrative law appeal against this judgment, concluding to its annulment with regard to the supplementary insurance contributions.Considerations
1. The dispute concerns the competence of the cantonal insurance tribunal in the field of supplementary insurance contributions. 2. Under the LAMA, disputes concerning supplementary insurance fell within the jurisdiction of the social insurance judge. With the entry into force of the HIA, supplementary insurance is governed by the IPA and first instance disputes fall under the ordinary judge, and no longer the social insurance judge. 3. However, under Art. 102(2) HIA, the rights and obligations of the insured were governed by the old law (LAMA) as long as the fund had not adapted its provisions on supplementary benefits to the new law. 4. Insofar as the dispute concerns the application…