SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 3062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Represented By The Manager – Appellant 
Versus 
Haripreetha T Meledathu Naduvile Muri – Respondent 
WA NO. 1670 OF 2024
Decided on : 06-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADV SRI.HARISH GOPINATH
For the Respondent: ADV SHRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (PN)

Insurance claims require adherence to policy stipulations, including waiting periods; any diagnosis within such periods disqualifies coverage.

Headnote:(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Writ appeal concerning insurance policy coverage for cancer diagnosis - Appellant denied claim based on diagnosis occurring within 180-day waiting period, contrary to respondent's claim asserting diagnosis confirmed after waiting period - Court ruled in favor of appellant, establishing that the confirmation of cancer diagnosis was within the waiting period, resulting in denial of coverage. (Paras 2, 5, 12, 14)

(B) Insurance - Interpretation of waiting period - Clearly defined waiting period of 180 days for policy benefits; any diagnosis made during this period does not qualify for claims under the insurance policy. (Paras 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
Respondent obtained cancer insurance policy but was diagnosed with cancer during the waiting period. The case centered on the precise date of diagnosis and whether it fell within the stipulated waiting period, impacting the claim’s validity. (Paras 3, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the diagnosis was indeed within the specified waiting period, leading to the conclusion that the respondent was not entitled to benefits under the policy. (Paras 12, 14)

Issues: Main issues included the interpretation of the waiting period in the insurance policy, specifically regarding the date of diagnosis of cancer and any implications of suppression of material facts. (Paras 11, 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that a formal confirmation of cancer through expert examination, occurring within the waiting period, negates eligibility for coverage under the policy. Thus, previous assessments of illness were indeed part of the construct that led to the claim's rejection. (Paras 12, 14)

Result: Writ appeal allowed; judgment of the lower court set aside, respondent's writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge of single judge's order. (Para 1)
2. details of insurance policy and medical history. (Para 2 , 3)
3. diagnosis and policy coverage. (Para 5)
4. conclusion and dismissal of writ appeal. (Para 6 , 14)
5. importance of diagnosis timing in insurance. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
6. assessment of suppression of facts. (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna S., J.

st respondent in W.P.(C) No.38249 of 2023 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. According to the 1st respondent, she had initially taken Ext.P1 Life Insurance Corporation’s (‘LIC’ in short) Cancer cover Policy dated 24.09.2019 for Rs.10,00,000/-. Since the 1st respondent was abroad, she could not renew the same during the currency of the policy. Later, after reaching her native place, the 1st respondent contacted the LIC of India and obtained a new policy from their office at Mavelikkara on 16.03.2021 by remitting the premium amount and completing all mandatory formalities. After five months, on 25.08.2021, the 1st respondent happened to be hospitalised in Life Line Hospital at Adoor in Pathanamthitta District, on account of profuse bleeding. Having found that Haemoglobin (HB) was lower, two units’ blood were given and Dilation & Curettage (D&C) was conducted. The 1st respondent was discharged on 28.08.2021. On the basis of the D&C report, she was advised to take expert opinion at Lake Shore Hospital, Ernakulam. Accordingly, she was admitted at Lake Shore Hospital on 09.09.2021 and underwent surgery to remove the uterus and the same was sent for investigation/biopsy. The biopsy result was obtained only on 28.09.2021, confirming that the 1st respondent was suffering from the disease Carcinoma Endometriosis Grade II. Since the 1st respondent has a valid cancer cover policy, she submitted Ext.P2 claim petition. In reply, the appellant issued Ext.P3 letter dated 22.11.2021 calling for treatment details of the 1st respondent. The hospital has issued Ext.P4 certificate showing the details of the treatment undergone by the 1st respondent. But the appellant rejected the claim of the 1st respondent, stating the reason that the first diagnosis of ‘any stage of cancer’ was on 25.08.2021, which was during the waiting period of 180 days mentioned in Clause 8(G) of Part C, from the date of policy, i.e., on 16.03.2021. After receiving Ext.P5 rejection order dated 06.01.2023, the 1st respondent submitted Ext.P6 complaint dated 17.02.2023 before the Manager, Grievance Redressal Office of the appellant at Kottayam. She further approached the Insurance Ombudsman by filing Ext.P7 petition dated 07.07.2023. But, by Ext.P9 award dated 29.09.2023, the Insurance Ombudsman rejected the petition, upholding the contention of the appellant. Hence, the 1st respondent filed W.P.(C) No.38249 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;

“1) To call for the originals of Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P9 and quash the same by a writ of certiorari;

2) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse the monetary benefit due to major stage cancer to the petitioner's valid insurance policy No. 319261424 dated 16.03.2021;

3) To declare that petitioner is eligible and entitled to all the monetary benefit of major stage cancer, covered under the insurance policy No. 319261424.dated 16.03.2021;”

3. In the writ petition, the appellant, who is the 1st respondent therein, filed a counter affidavit dated 17.01.2024, producing therewith Exts.R1 to R1(g) documents. By producing Ext.R1(b) copy of Ultrasound Scan Report dated 25.08.2021, Ext.R1(c) Histopathology Report dated 31.08.2021 and Ext.R1(d) MRI Report dated 01.09.2021 pertaining to the examination regarding the illness of the 1st respondent conducted from the hospital wherein the 1st respondent obtained the treatment initiall

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top