Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High 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"]

Similar News