IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

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