Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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"]

Latest Legal News