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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Sah, Insurance Ombudsman, Pune (state of Maharashtra except Mumbai Metro) – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 1244 OF 2023 | INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Maithili Parikh, Mr. Nabeel Malik, Ms. Sanjana Sapra
For the Respondents: Mr. Avinash Fatangare, Ms. Archana Shelar

Insurance policies bundled with loans impose an obligation on insurers to ensure claim payments, emphasizing the principle of good faith in processing claims.

Headnote:(A) Insurance Act, 1938 - Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 - Claim repudiation - Claim for insurance policy linked to housing loan was validated by the Ombudsman despite insurer’s repudiation based on lack of evidence for critical illness - Policy bundled with housing loan creates an implied obligation for secure repayment upon death of borrower. (Paras 1, 17, 29)

(B) Duties of Insurance Companies - Insurance companies must process claims in good faith and not exploit technicalities to deny valid claims, especially in cases involving bundled policies. (Paras 11, 12, 28)

(C) Principle of Contra Proferentem - Ambiguities in insurance contracts should be interpreted in favor of the insured, especially when policy conditions are unclear and result in injustice. (Paras 24, 26)

Facts of the case:
The case involves a claim by the widow of the insured who passed away unexpectedly, leaving his family vulnerable. The insurer denied the claim alleging a lack of evidence for covered critical illness despite the Ombudsman awarding the claim after reviewing conflicting medical opinions.

Findings of Court:
The Insurance Ombudsman's award requiring the insurer to pay the claim amount was found plausible, with the court refusing to interfere as the insurer failed to provide just grounds for repudiation.

Issues: Key issues included the interpretation of policy terms and whether the cause of death fell within defined critical illnesses under the insurance policy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision, emphasizing the insurer's responsibility to honor the claim based on the family's reliance on the insurance policy for loan security.

Result: Petition dismissed with a directive for the insurer to pay the claim amount within four weeks.

Table of Content
1. overview of insurance claim dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding insurance policy terms. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 21)
3. court's assessment of claim validity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. conflicting medical opinions analyzed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. legal interpretation standards applied. (Para 24 , 25)
6. final court decision and directive. (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

1) This an unfortunate case, where all three male members of the family passed away in a short span of 6 months leaving behind the family in penury. The widow’s claim towards insurance availed by her husband as a part of package of housing loan availed for purchase of their home, is repudiated by the Petitioner insurance company. Due to widow’s inability to repay the housing loan, the finance company has attached the flat for sale. The Insurance Ombudsman has allowed the claim preferred by the widow and has directed Petitioner to pay to her the claim amount of Rs.27,00,000/- vide impugned award dated 21 November 2022. Petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 21 November 2022 and has filed the present petition.

2) Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 2 and her late husband dreamt of owning a house. They planned to purchase of Flat No. 704 on 7th floor of building Sonadevi Residency situated at plot No. 1, 9/2a and 12/4, Survey No. 1 village Temghar, Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane (the Flat). The husband of Respondent No. 2 was working as a teacher in ABS International School. After negotiations, sale consideration of the flat was agreed at Rs.30,70,000/-. The duo registered an Agreement for Sale with the developer on 31 March 2017. Respondent No. 2 and her husband approached India Infoline Housing Finance Limited (IIFL) for disbursement of housing loan, which sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.27,00,000/- to the couple. However, in the sanction letter dated 24 June 2017, a condition was imposed for compulsory availing of insurance policy. The sanction letter stated that insurance premium of Rs.84,767/- was included in the loan amount. This is how total loan amount sanctioned to the couple was Rs.27,84,767/-, out of which Rs. 84,767 was debited and paid by IIFL directly to Petitioner while the balance amount was disbursed to the couple. The loan amount of Rs. 27,84,767 was repayable in 27 years through Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI) of Rs.22,631/-. After receipt of insurance premium of Rs. 84,767 from IIFL, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited (Petitioner) issued Group Credit Secure Insurance Policy in the name of Mr. Vishal Suryabhan Raut (husband of Respondent No. 2). The insurance policy included coverage for specified and defined critical illnesses for Rs.27,00,000/-. It is the case of Respondent No. 2 that insurance policy was never supplied to her or to her husband and it was internal arrangement between IIFL and the Petitioner.

3) In the year 2020, the husband of Respondent No. 2 secured a new job at Vapi, Gujrat and shifted along with his family in a licensed premises at Vapi. On 10 April 2021, the husband of Respondent No. 2 started suffering from fever and visited a doctor. Since there was no improvement in his condition, he was brought to Bhiwandi on 12 April 2021 and was hospitalized in Shree Saish Hospital, Bhiwandi for treatment. It is the case of Respondent No. 2 that her husband suffered from severe cardiac arrest on 15 April 2021 and passed away within 15 to 20 minutes. After securing a copy of the insurance policy, Respondent No. 2 lodged the claim by filling the claim form. On 15 July 2021, Petitioner requested for certain documents to process the claim and particularly called for Electrocardiogram (ECG) and other relevant reports. Respondent No. 2 informed the Petitioner on 16 July 2021 that ECG and other tests could not be conducted. Petitioner forwarded all medical papers of the deceased to Dr. Asrani, its panel medical professional, and based on the medical report, Petitioner repudiated the claim on 20 October 2021 on the

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