Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

Insurance Law | Acceptance of Premium and Issuance of Receipt Signify Commencement of Insurance Coverage: Supreme Court Holds in LIC Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has reinstated the orders of the District Forum and State Commission that were in favor of Mrs. Bhumikaben N. Modi & Ors., in their insurance claim dispute with Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). Justices A.S. Bopanna and C.T. Ravikumar overturned the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) decision that had dismissed the appellants’ claims following the policyholder’s death.

The core legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court centered on whether the acceptance of a first premium by LIC, followed by the issuance of a policy receipt, established a binding insurance contract prior to the policyholder’s untimely death.

The dispute originated when Mr. Narender Kumar Kantilal Modi, the deceased, submitted his life insurance proposal and premium shortly before dying from an accidental electric shock. Although LIC issued an Acceptance-cum-First Premium Receipt, it later contested the policy’s validity, arguing that the formal acceptance of the proposal had not occurred before Mr. Modi’s death.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the sequence of events and documentary proofs, affirming that the initial forums had rightly determined the existence of a binding contract from the actions of LIC, which included the acknowledgment of premium payment and policy effectuation before Mr. Modi’s demise. The apex court criticized the NCDRC’s contrary decision, underscoring that LIC’s subsequent attempt to block the policy post-death was irrelevant to the contract’s validity.

Justice Ravikumar emphasized, “The issuance of a receipt and acceptance of the premium unequivocally placed the insurer on risk from that date, thereby binding them to the contract terms regardless of subsequent internal actions.”

Decision: By setting aside the NCDRC’s order, the Supreme Court directed LIC to adhere to the original favorable orders and settle the claims according to the policy terms within two months.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2024.

Mrs. Bhumikaben N. Modi & Ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Latest Legal News