You are here: Home » Finance » News » Insurance
Business Standard

Insurance claim to be rejected if lapsed on premium not paid: SC

The apex court observation came while setting aside an order of NCDRC that ordered additional compensation in a road accident case

Topics
Insurance claims | Supreme Court | Insurance Sector

Press Trust of India  |  New Delhi 

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

An claim can be rejected if the policy has lapsed on account of non-payment of premium, said the which stressed that the terms of an policy have to be strictly interpreted.

The apex court observation came while setting aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that ordered additional compensation in a road accident case.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi said it is a well-settled legal position that in a contract of there is a requirement of Uberrima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the insured.

"It is clear that the terms of insurance policy have to be strictly construed, and it is not permissible to rewrite the contract while interpreting the terms of the policy," the bench said.

The top court was hearing an appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) against the judgement of the NCDRC that had set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

In the case, the woman's husband had taken a life insurance policy under the Jeevan Suraksha Yojana from the Life Insurance Corporation under which a sum of Rs. 3.75 lakh was assured by LIC.

Besides this amount, in case of death by accident an additional sum of Rs. 3.75 lakh was also assured.

The insurance premium of the said policy was to be paid six-monthly, however, there was a default in payment.

On March 6, 2012, the husband of the complainant met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries on March 21, 2012.

The complainant after the death of her husband filed a claim before LIC and was paid a sum of Rs. 3.75 lakh to her. However, the additional sum of Rs. 3.75 lakh towards the Accident claim benefit was denied.

The complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum by filing a complaint seeking the said amount towards the Accident claim benefit. The District Forum allowed the appeal of the woman and directed the payment of an additional sum of Rs. 3.75 lakh towards the Accident claim benefit.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the order which was further challenged in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The NCDRC set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

The apex court said in the instant case, condition no. 11 of the policy stipulated that the policy has to be in force when the accident takes place.

"In the instant case, the policy had lapsed on October 14, 2011, and was not in force on the date of accident i.e. on March 6, 2012. It was sought to be revived on March 9, 2012, after the accident in question, and that too without disclosing the fact of the accident which had taken place on March 6, 2012," the apex court said in its October 29 order.

The top court said apart from the fact that the complainant had not come with clean hands to claim the add on/extra Accident benefit of the policy, the policy in question was not in force on the date of the accident as per condition no. 11 of the policy, the claim for extra Accident benefit was rightly rejected by the Corporation.

"Since clause 3 of the said terms and conditions of the policy permitted the renewal of the discontinued policy, the appellant-Corporation had revived the policy of complainant by accepting the payment of premium after the due date and paid Rs 3,75,000 as assured under the policy, nonetheless for the Accident benefit, the policy had to be in force for the full sum assured on the date of accident as per the said condition no. 11," the bench said.

The apex court said the accident benefit could have been claimed and availed of only if the accident had taken place after the renewal of the policy.

"The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the NCDRC setting aside the order passed by the Commission and reviving the order passed by the District Forum was highly erroneous and liable to be set aside," the bench said.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Dear Reader,


Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

First Published: Tue, November 02 2021. 02:03 IST
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
.