Civil Procedure Code (CPC)

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

21st Century Insurance Litigation In The Supreme Court Of India: A Critical Analysis


Examining developments in insurance litigation in the Supreme Court of India in the 21st century, in which I have sought to analyse the scale of policy prosecution in India and have also addressing significant milestone cases in insurance law.

Insurance litigation is a subdivision of civil law which includes court proceedings and the dismissal of insurance-related disputes. Insurance litigation consists mainly of disagreements amongst insurers and policy holders and, in that capacity, includes everything from asbestos litigation to segregation in the workplace.

The wide escalating hierarchy of civil courts comprises approximately 600 district courts, 24 high courts and the Supreme Court of India, the highest court of law in India. Four of the 24 High Courts-Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata-have the initial authority to hear cases of a certain monetary nature, so that the civil courts and the justices under them do not hear issues pertaining values higher than the limit.

The IBC - Theory, and Practice by Adv. Amrita Kharkar

Click here to enroll masterclass on - The IBC - Theory, and Practice by Adv. Amrita Kharkar


When we speak about insurance lawsuits, it is very important for us to consider the deep sense of the term insurance, that is:

'coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril”

When we try to explore this concept, we get that insurance is the way an individual or company attempts to withstand the damage or responsibility of another person.

Now this seems like a pretty easy mechanism, so where's the challenge? The insurance law is fundamentally a statutory law according to which the insured is obliged to sign a policy which, like all the terms under which the insured is compensated by the insurer. The difficulty occurs when there is uncertainty in the circumstances under which it is unclear whether the insurer's liability / loss is protected under the conditions specified in the coverage agreement, and this is where most of the insurance litigation in the Supreme Court the 21st century is concerned with.

The trend we are seeing now is that insurance providers are seeking every tenable route to minimize the risk that they are forced to bear, and are substantiated in their own way, when every reasonable person would seek to limit their risks as much as possible. In an effort to do so, the insurance agent shall take advantage of the shortcomings in the contract and the relevant actions implemented, such as the Motor Vehicle Act, the Indian Criminal Code and many others, to their benefit.

The offended party, that's the safeguarded utilizes the lawful technique for courts to aim to ensure his buy which he's qualified for, for this he records a suit within the court or the customer gathering whichever has the ward over his case, in his case he attempts to depict the occurrence which prompted the misfortune and furthermore the sum which he thinks he's qualified for, accordingly the insurance agency answers by means of a composed assertion, denying/tolerating the cases made under the plaint. Following this preliminary process, all the claimants present their facts and therefore therefore, the witnesses crossed by either party and the court/tribunal eventually determines if the insured is susceptible to the lawsuit, if not, to the quantity of cash to tend.

The Supreme Court perceives insurance regulations by reviewing different cases.The Uberrimae Fidei contract, i.e., a contract of the paramount good faith gives us the means to justify the contractual viability of the documents.


This is an international study of insurance laws in multiple nations published by Neeraj Tuli and Rajat Taimni in the chapter of India. They studied the present state of reimbursement arbitration in India and provided a timely review of the different cases of the Apex Court which brought substantial modifications to the interpretation of insurance law. Initially, they began off with an overview of insurance litigation in India and then moved on to discuss the current insurance legal framework in India, then the authors went on to evaluate subsequent squabbles and try to give us a brief description of how the Supreme Court has dealt with recent insurance lawsuits.

The author also analyzed current insurance litigation and discovered that there is a large number of insurance cases where the insured claims that they are committed to the terms of the deal, but the defendant denies them in part or in full. In addition, to add to the speaker, I would say that this is where insurance litigation in India begins, and this confusion contributes to the need to decipher litigation on policy terms as an anomaly.

The author further points out that the insured can only contact the economic court or the buyer court where there's no settlement provision within the policy. within the courts, the recourse hospitable the insured are either claims for compensation or the actual execution of the agreement. The courts also pay and interest on sums that sometimes range from 9-12% from the date on which the explanation for the case occurred, the particular figure being at the discretion of the judge. So, to sum up this, we may assume that the insured is completely bound by the policy terms and may only approach the courts within the event of the shortage of an arbitration agreement. What i'll also obtain from the author is that insurance should be handled in compliance with consumer law and thus the legal machinery provided under the buyer Protection Act is additionally applicable to the insured within the event of conflicts. It also can be taken to the courts if they need the required authority within the case.


In his research article, Bhattacharjee was attempting to shed some light on the early history and development of insurance law in India. He tells us that the very first insurance law was enacted by the Insurance Act of 1938, followed by the Life Insurance Act of 1956 and the Maritime Insurance Act of 1963, which established the very foundations of insurance legislation in India.

In the first part, the author addressed the directors required for the creation of the security agreement and divided the various forms of protection. The creator has additionally given a thorough examination of what establishes as an insurable interest, i.e., "Insurable interest is defined as the reasonable concern of a person to obtain insurance for any individual or property against unforeseen events such as death, losses, etc."

an insurance contract is an Uberrimae Fidei contract.This ensures that the insurance policy must be signed in the best of good faith and that the insured must reveal to the insurer his full truthful facts. In the event of inaccurate, hidden or erroneous facts, the insurer's liability shall be invalid.


Insurance action shall take place only if there is an ambiguity between the understanding of the insurance terms and the applicable regulatory provisions. On a number of occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the National Commission have highlighted the value of the Law and the extent to which it should be implemented in the settlement of claims.Officers of insurance firms are obliged to abide by the terms of the policy only as laid out in the policy, whereas the Supreme Court and the National Commission have consistently read the language of the policy in its true sense, and only after a decision has been issued that insurance companies comply with the matter in accordance with the guidelines of the Supreme Court and the National Commission. Eg: In case non registration of vehicle the insurance company generally deny the claims though they insured the vehicle only on the bases of engine no. and chassis no.

In one of its quotations, the national commission held that the fines levied by the MV Act were restricted by non-registration of the car, while the demands of the insured in the case of an unregistered vehicle (when the vehicle is stolen) were denied for more than the range determined by the MV Act.

Analogously, in the case of a driving license MV Act classified light motor vehicles and commercial vehicles, but the insurance provider denied the allegations where the car comes into the category of Light motor vehicle with a weight below 7500 and is licensed under the heading of commercial vehicle where the driver holds a non-transport LMV license (Devangan v UOI).

Similarly, in the case of the stealing of the car, the contract provisions state that the assertion of the insurance firm should be immediate, while the Supreme Court held that where the insured had disclosed the information to the police within 2-3 days of the theft and the prosecutor of the insurance company had not detected any foul play, the pause in the claim of the insurance company would not be considered as ground for denunciation. In Mediclaim's, the pre-existing conditions enforced by the insurance provider are waived by the Supreme Court if the deceased has no proximity to the pre-existing conditions.

A great deal of reform has been introduced to the Consumer Protection Act in the 21st century and the scope of the Consumer Protection Act has been expanded, especially in situations of jurisdictional limits.

Furthermore, this volume limitation is also expanded in the State Commission and the National Commission 21 century e marketplace has been on the rise, both alternate types of litigation and insurance are covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1920. Limit to the sending of a response by insurance providers has been introduced in the Consumer Protection Act which allows the guidance given for fast disposal of cases.



The Supreme Court, in its verdict of 1 April 2019, dispossessed insurance services of obligation for not providing the policyholder with sufficient whistleblowing of the pertinent reality. The Court held that, if any, it was not the obligation of the employer to warn erstwhile insurers of the establishment and resolution of the earlier statements. The Apex Court heard an appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company ('Insurer') against a decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ('NCDRC').

In 2004, the insured purchased a hydraulic excavator device that was covered by insurance with New India Assurance Company Limited ('previous insurer') from 15 November 2004 to 14 November 2005. The excavator went up in flames on 12 April 2005 and a case was brought and resolved by the former insurer. The excavator had been under refurbishment until 10 October 2006 and had been covered by the insurance company since 11 October 20 to 10 October 2007. The excavator burst into flames again on 15 October 2006 and a letter was submitted to the claimant. On 25 November 2008, the insurer disproved the claim that it had not disclosed all the factual details that the complainant had to report to the insurer in order to determine the risk profile of the good insured. Quite specifically, the role of the company was that the essence of the proposal involved a distinct question related to the details of the settlements received in the preceding three years. The same question had not been answered, meanwhile the insured had sealed the insurance contract with the prior insurer in the context of a proposition.


The Apex Court Bench, comprising of Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice M.M. Shantanagoudar, held that there was no limit to granting a compensation in excess of the value pursued under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In the given instrument, the claimants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court requested more increase in compensation under Rs. 21,53,000/-awarded to the High Court of Kerala in Ernakulam.

The plaintiffs were the dependents, that is, the wife, two children, and the elderly father of the victim who died in a crash in 2008 due to severe injuries. At first, the claimants lodged a lawsuit motion to the Motor Injuries Claim Tribunal demanding complete reimbursement for Rs. 25000000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Lakhs). After considering the claims, the Tribunal awarded damages for Rs 11,83,000/-which was decreased by a supplementary award of Rs 9,70,000/- by the Kerala HC.Having been embittered by the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, the petitioners preferred the assertion before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to further increase the amount of the compensation.The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had no authority to deduct 2/3 of the total revenue of the bereaved in view of his living purchases and held that a deterioration of 40% would be sufficient to characterize the capital gains expenditure of the dead person.In the Verdict, the applicants were deemed to a net incentive of Rs 28.000.000/-which was greater than the amount seeked by the applicant(s) of the deceased.The Hon’ble Court centred on the judgments in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram and Ibrahim v. Raju; the Court noted that "There is no limitation that the Court cannot award relief exceeding the claimed amount since the intention of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to administer 'just compensation'."

The Court acknowledged that the Motor Vehicles Act is a rule on benefit and wellbeing. Fair treatment is one in which the compensation given is reasonable on the grounds of the evidence reported. This should not be said to have been time-barred. The Court further noticed that there was no need for an increased amount to be demanded for a new legal case. It is the duty of the courts to proceed with awarding only and only compensation.


Insurance law is founded on the principle of the highest good conscience, and Indian insurance legislation has largely been based on Common law.

Though some of the subtle features of insurance law are missing, this situation is central to insurance legal principles in India. The Court's heavy dependency on English cases and agreements compelled it to set down laws on imminent insurance law issues.

The law on good conscience and symbolism has been more streamlined in line with current legislation in England. Despite the fact that most insurance issues first find their way to consumer sites, which tend to be a necessity in the protection of the protected, this situation has verified that they have been adequately protected.

The Court, however, lost the prospect to enforce the rule on promises by being neutral on the claim that there was a breach of the contractual provision and by explaining the implications that it might bring. Once more, it's possible that the Court intentionally resisted doing so, judging the case law of Indian insurance as still too prevalent to permit the compulsory forfeiture of responsibility for the great of the insured to be prosecuted.

"Loved reading this piece by SHIVEK J.?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Click here to join our Telegram group.

Tags :

Category Others, Other Articles by - SHIVEK J. 


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query