Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Supreme Court Orders Insurance Company to Reimburse Medical Expenses Incurred in Accident, Calls Insurance Company’s Conduct “Unfair and Unjust”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the insured, Hem Raj, ordering The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. To indemnify the total amount of INR 10,36,500/- for an accident that occurred in Nepal. The Court found the insurance company’s conduct “unfair and unjust” for denying reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the insured towards the treatment of an injured third-party involved in the accident.

The case involved an accident on 11th September 2014, in Nepal, where the insured’s vehicle was driven by someone else and resulted in the death of Smt. Santliya Tharu and injuries to Ram Parshad Tharu. The insurance policy covered the territory of India and Nepal, and the insured sought reimbursement for various expenses incurred.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) initially disallowed the indemnification of medical expenses, citing “no evidence on record.” However, on appeal, the Supreme Court found medical bills (Exhibits P-9 to P-28) on record supporting the medical expenses incurred by the insured. The Court criticized the insurance company’s incorrect submissions before the NCDRC, which led to the denial of reimbursement, and termed the insurer’s conduct as “not fair and just.”

Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who delivered the judgment, stated, “The submissions made on behalf of the insurance company before the NCDRC are contrary to the evidence on record as a result of which the appellant herein has been not only deprived of the aforesaid amount spent by him towards medical expenses but also has been constrained to approach this Court. We find that the stand of the insurer in this case is not fair and just.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. To pay the insured the amount of INR 4,09,000/- for medical expenses, along with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint before the District Forum. Additionally, a nominal cost of INR 30,000/- was imposed on the insurance company.

 Date of Decision: 25th July, 2023

HEM RAJ vs THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/25-Jul-2023_Hemraj_Vs_India_Assurance.pdf"]

Latest Legal News