Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 599
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ajai Kumar Srivastava, President, Sudha Upadhyay, Member
Suresh Chandra Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
First Appeal No. SC/9/A/1026/2022
For the Appellant: Suresh Chandra Gupta
For the Respondents: State Bank Of India And Others
Insurance contracts must be interpreted strictly according to their terms, without external contradiction unless ambiguities arise.
Headnote:In the analysis of the insurance policy at hand, the court iterated the interpretation of contractual terms and emphasized the necessity to adhere to the exact language of the contract. The facts revolve around the appellant's grievances against the respondents regarding insurance coverage. The court found that the provisions of the policy must be strictly followed as previously established in relevant legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's interpretation of insurance contracts. The primary question involved the applicability of specific policy clauses concerning self-inflicted injuries and the court concluded that the terms under the insurance contract require precise adherence in application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's claims regarding insurance. (Para 1) |
| 2. discussion of policy coverage and self-inflicted injury. (Para 2) |
ORDER
Suresh Chandra Gupta S/o Shri Babulal resident of Village-Badausarai, Tehsil- Sirauligauspur, District-Barabanki.
1.Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch-Badausarai, Tehsil-Sirauligauspur, District-Barabanki.
2. Manager, State Bank of India, General Insurance Company, Navi Mumbai, 8rth Floor, Seaod Ground, Central Tower 2, Plot No. R-1, Sector-40, Seaod Nerul Node, District-Thane, Navi Mumbai-400706 ..............
“Suicide, attempted suicide (whether sane or insane) or intentionally self-inflicted injury or illness” and “for any loss to which a contributing cause was insured person’s actual or attempted commission, or wilful participation in, an illegal act or any violation or attempted violation of the law or resistance to arrest or insured person committing any breach of law with criminal intent.”
“Similarly in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain and Anr. reported in (1966) 3 SCR 500 the Constitution Bench has observed that the policy document being a contract and it has to be read strictly. It was observed, " In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. Looking at the proposal, the letter of acceptance and the cover notes, it is clear that a contract of insurance under the standard policy for fire and extended to cover flood, cyclone etc. had come into being."
Therefore, it is settled law that the terms of the contract has to be strictly read and natural meaning be given to it. No outside aid should be sought unless the meaning is ambiguous.”
