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 Rules Against Life Insurance Corporation's Levy of Service Charge for Policy Assignment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled against the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in a case challenging the legality of levying a service charge for recording the assignment of life insurance policies. The case, titled *Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.*, centered on the contentious issue of whether LIC had the authority to impose a registration charge of Rs. 250 per assignment.

The court, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka, scrutinized various aspects of the case, including statutory provisions, constitutional implications, and regulatory authority. The judgment firmly concluded that LIC's practice of levying the service charge was unconstitutional and without legal basis.

In a key observation, the court stated, "The question is whether the appellant-insurer is lawfully entitled to levy a service charge of Rs. 250 for a transaction of assignment of a life insurance policy." The court emphasized that neither the statutory provisions nor the contract of the policy provided any authorization for such a charge. Moreover, regulations issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India expressly prohibited additional fees for recording assignments.

The judgment reaffirms the principle that fees or charges must have a legitimate legal basis, especially in the context of insurance policies that impact the financial interests of policyholders. The court's decision highlights the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and regulatory guidelines in the financial services sector.

The case had seen LIC attempting to defend its fee imposition as a necessary part of a business transaction, but the court rejected this argument. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the service charge levied by LIC for policy assignments was unconstitutional.

This verdict serves as a significant precedent, underscoring the need for financial institutions to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks when implementing fees or charges related to financial products.

Date of Decision: September 6, 2023

Life Insurance Corporation of India  vs Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.                          

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/06-Sep-2023_LIC_Vs_DRAVYA-FINANCE-PVT.-LTD.pdf"]

Latest Legal News