Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V.MENON
Deepa S. W/o. Late Rahul Chandran – Appellant
Versus
Permanent Lok Adalat(For Public Utilities) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges insurance benefit denial after husband's death. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 4) |
| 2. court's analysis of policy validity and contract formation principles. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. insurance company claims pre-existing condition and policy commencement date. (Para 5 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. contract exists based on premium payment date, not policy issuance. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P4 award passed by the 1st respondent herein by which certain insurance benefits claimed by her with respect to the death of her husband were rejected.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: -
The petitioner’s deceased husband had obtained two housing loans from the 5th respondent and on the insistence of the said respondent, insurance was obtained from respondents 2 to 4, by including the cost of the premium in the loan amount. The first disbursement of the insurance is stated to have taken place on 29.06.2015, inclusive of the premium payable to respondents 2 to 4. It is stated that the 5th respondent paid the premium directly to respondents 2 to 4 on 29.06.2015. Howe
An insurance policy's validity is determined by the date of premium payment, not the policy issuance date, establishing that a binding contract can exist even without a formal policy document.
An insurance policy is valid if the premium is paid before the proposer’s death, and the insurer cannot deny liability due to processing delays.
A lapsed insurance policy cannot be revived post-death, and the Insurance Ombudsman lacks authority to bypass contract terms based on equity.
An insurance policy lapses if the premium is not paid within the grace period; revivals after the insured's death are impermissible under contract terms.
Effective date of Insurance Policy – Date of issuance of policy would be relevant date for all purposes and not date of proposal or date of issuance of receipt.
Insurance liability is contingent on the effective date of coverage as defined in the insurance policy, which prevails over the timing of premium receipt.
(1) Significance of Policy Documentation – Policy documents issued by the appellant contained a “dash” in the column for pre-existing diseases. This serves as an admission by the insurer that no such....
Collection of Premium – The insurance agent is not even has authority to collect premium of insurance policy at all, which is applicable in the facts of the present case also.
The court affirmed that an insurance company cannot contest a claim based on the insured's status after significant delay and emphasized the need for timely processing of claims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
