Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1806
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J
MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION – Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 462 OF 2014 (GM-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. MANMOHAN P N.
For the Respondents: SRI. A N KRISHNASWAMY
Failure to comply with policy conditions and inordinate delay justified dismissal of insurance claims.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Insurance - Claim repudiation by insurer based on policy terms - Arbitration and procedural delays impact on claims - Petitioner informed insurer about the pendency of a consumer complaint but failed to comply with policy conditions, leading to dismissal of claim as barred by time. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 11)
(B) Limitation - Delay in filing claims - The court emphasized that inordinate delay invites dismissal as per the precedent that equity is barred by delay. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought reimbursement from the insurer for a claim arising out of a consumer complaint, which was repudiated based on policy terms and the delay in raising the claim.
Findings of Court:
The court found that claims made by the petitioner were barred by limitation and the Permanent Lok Adalath's order was justified.
Issues: Main issues included the validity of insurance claims under policy terms and the effects of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the insured's failure to adhere to policy obligations, particularly timely notice, justified the insurer's repudiation. Moreover, delay in filing claims restricts judicial review.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner provided insurance claim for consumer complaint. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments centered on policy breach and claim repudiation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. inordinate delay welcomed dismissal of claims. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court dismissed the writ petition. (Para 12) |
ORDER
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2013 passed in P.L.D.No.382/2011 by the Permanent Lok Adalath, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada and to quash the communication dated 05.02.2003 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-B and also communication dated 17.02.2003 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-D and declare the Clause 5(b) of the policy bearing No.4667080500670 is invalid and contravenes Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’), has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
It is the case of the petitioner that one Sri S.R.Krishna Singh filed a complaint in complaint No.125/1999 before the Dakshina Kannada Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mangalore seeking for compensation from the petitioner for medical negligence. The said complaint came to be allowed vide order dated 17.10.2003 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1291/2003 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. The State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Forum and State Commission, the petitioner filed a revision petition in R.P.No.1115/2006 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The National Commission vide order dated 02.02.2010, dismissed the revision petition. The said complainant filed an execution petition in E.P.No.57/2010 seeking to execute the order passed by the District Forum. The petitioner paid the entire amount to the complainant and the execution petition was closed vide order dated 06.10.2010. During the pendency of the aforesaid complaint before the District Forum, the petitioner issued a letter dated 16.01.2003 and 21.01.2003 to the respondent intimating the Company about the pendency of the complaint. In response to the said latter, the respondent issued a letter dated 05.02.2003 stating that the claim of the complainant is beyond the time period stipulated under the agreement. The petitioner issued reply dated 10.02.2003 brining to the notice of the respondent that Clause 5 (b) of the policy is not valid and is contrary to Section 28 (a) of the Act. Pursuant to the closure of the execution petition, the petitioner vide communication dated 20.11.2010 sought for reimbursement of the aforesaid amount as per the terms of the policies. The respondent vide letter dated 25.11.2010 sought for further documents for processing the claim. The petitioner furnished all the documents as sought by the respondent. The respondent vide letter dated 08.11.2010 repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the claim is not within the time stipulated under Clause 10.12 of agreement. Aggrieved by the order declining to reimburse the amount, the petitioner filed P.L.D.No.382/2011 under Section 22C (1) of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok Adalath, Mangalore seeking for payment of Rs.5,37,448/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 05.10.2010. The Permanent Lok Adalath dismissed the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 10.10.2013. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2013, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath, filed this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide communications dated 16.01.2003 and 21.01.2003 had informed the respondent about the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum
