6 October 2025 Legal Updates

DENIAL OF MEDICAL INSURANCE CLAIM AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 21: KERALA HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Dr. A.M. Muraleedharan v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

(b) Court:

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(c) Bench:

• Justice P.M. Manoj

(d) Date of Decision:

• September 8, 2025

Facts

Dr. Muraleedharan held an LIC Health Plus policy from March 31, 2008, covering himself, his wife, and two children until March 31, 2024. He filed two claims for his wife's medical treatment:

• First Claim (₹60,093): For hospitalization from April 12-22, 2016, for vesicovaginal fistula treatment. LIC sanctioned only ₹5,600, claiming benefits were based on daily benefit calculations, not actual expenses, and the surgery wasn't listed in covered procedures.
• Second Claim (₹1,80,000): For continued treatment from August 1-24, 2016. LIC rejected this entirely, citing a pre-existing condition (hernia repair in 2006) that wasn't disclosed in the proposal form.

Issues

• Whether the writ petition was maintainable for enforcing contractual insurance claims?
• Whether LIC could reject the first claim by limiting it based on listed surgical procedures?
• Whether LIC could repudiate the second claim based on non-disclosure of a pre-existing condition (hernia repair) unrelated to the current ailment?
• Whether Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 barred such repudiation?

Legal Principles & Judgment

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition

The Court held the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable and jurisdiction can be invoked when the dispute is bona fide, there's miscarriage of justice, fundamental rights are violated, no extensive oral evidence is required or principles of natural justice are violated. The Court found the right to medical treatment (Article 21) was implicated, making the petition maintainable.

2. Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938

The Court extensively analyzed Section 45 and held that after two years from policy issuance, policies cannot be questioned on any ground whatsoever. Within the limitation period, repudiation requires proof of fraudulent suppression of material facts. Since the policy commenced in 2008 and claims arose in 2016, the two-year period had long expired. Even otherwise, hernia repair (2006) had no nexus with vesicovaginal fistula treatment.

3. Material Suppression

The Court held that suppression justifies repudiation only if:

• The undisclosed ailment is material to the risk
• It has direct nexus with the claimed contingency
• There was fraudulent and willful suppression

Hernia repair had no medical connection to vesicovaginal fistula (a post-hysterectomy complication), so non-disclosure wasn't material suppression.

Interpretation of Policy Terms

The Court applied several principles:

• Contra Proferentem: Ambiguous terms must be interpreted against the drafter (insurer) and in favor of the insured
• Reasonable Expectation Doctrine: Policyholders reasonably expect coverage for unforeseen medical contingencies; restrictive interpretations defeat this purpose
• Liberal Construction: Lists of covered surgeries should be construed liberally; medically comparable procedures shouldn't be denied on technical grounds
• Uberrima Fides (Utmost Good Faith): This duty applies equally to insurers, who must clearly disclose coverage limitations before policy issuance

Natural Justice Violation

The impugned orders didn't show the insured was given adequate opportunity to explain, violating natural justice principles.

Decision

The Court quashed the three impugned orders and directed LIC to allow the petitioner's claims without further delay. It emphasized that accepting premiums for years then denying claims on technicalities undermines public trust.

'INTOXICATION ON DUTY ERODES PUBLIC TRUST, UNDERMINES INTEGRITY': GUJARAT HIGH COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION OF POLICE CONSTABLE

(a) Case Title:

• Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol v. State of Gujarat

(b) Court:

• High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

(c) Date of Decision:

• 01/10/2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani

Brief Facts

A police constable was found intoxicated while on night patrol duty at Pirana Toll Naka on 14.12.2003 at 2:55 AM. He displayed signs of intoxication - unsteady posture, slurred speech, and alcohol smell. His blood sample showed 0.0945% alcohol content, exceeding the legal limit of 0.05% under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Consumption of alcohol without permit
• Section 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act - Being intoxicated in public to the extent of losing self-control
• Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959

Court Proceedings

• Trial Court: Metropolitan Magistrate convicted under Section 66(1)(b) - 3 months simple imprisonment + Rs.500 fine; Acquitted under Section 85(1)(3)
• Appellate Court: Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal
• Revision: High Court rejected the revision application

Key Arguments

1. By Applicant:

Acquittal under Section 85(1)(3) contradicts conviction under Section 66(1)(b). Mandatory blood test procedures (Rule 4) not properly followed. Unexplained delay in forensic analysis (blood drawn 14.12.2003, reached FSL 19.12.2003, analyzed 23.12.2003). Chain of custody not properly established.

2. By State:

Both offences are distinct with different ingredients. Disposable syringes were used (no sterilization needed). Preservatives were properly added and mixed. Sample reached FSL within statutory 7-day limit. Blood alcohol level (0.0945%) exceeded legal limit (0.05%) and therefore, police officer on duty deserves no leniency.

Legal Principles Established

• Separate Offences: Conviction under Section 66(1)(b) can stand independently even if acquitted under Section 85(1)(3), as they have different ingredients - the former requires only consumption above prescribed limit; the latter requires public indecency or loss of self-control.
• Statutory Presumption: Blood alcohol concentration above 0.05% creates statutory presumption of consumption, making behavioral evidence supplementary but not essential.
• Procedural Compliance: Use of disposable syringes obviates sterilization requirement; minor delays within statutory limits don't vitiate evidence if seals remain intact.
• Police Accountability: Police personnel found intoxicated while on duty face stricter treatment as they must maintain impeccable conduct and discipline. Leniency would undermine public confidence in law enforcement.
• Revisional Powers: High Courts exercise revisional jurisdiction only to correct manifest errors or prevent miscarriage of justice, not to substitute their view for lower courts unless findings are patently illegal or perverse.

Judgment

The High Court rejected the revision application, upholding both conviction and sentence. The applicant was directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT SLAMS LITIGANTS FOR “FORUM SHOPPING”, IMPOSES ₹1 LAKH COST & REFERS ISSUE TO CHIEF JUSTICE

(a) Case Title:

• Annpurna Medical Training (College of Nursing) v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

(c) Bench:

• Single Judge Bench - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain

(d) Date of Decision:

• September 25, 2025

Facts

Multiple nursing colleges from districts under Jaipur Bench jurisdiction (like Bharatpur, Sikar, Jaipur) filed writ petitions before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, seeking inclusion in the counselling list for B.Sc. Nursing admissions for 2025-26. The lead petitioner, Annpurna Medical Training (College of Nursing), was located in Sikar but filed the petition at Jodhpur with a handwritten note claiming "Matter pertains to Jodhpur jurisdiction."

Issues

• Whether petitions from districts under Jaipur Bench's territorial jurisdiction can be filed at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur?
• Whether the practice of "forum shopping" and "bench hunting" violates jurisdictional norms?

Legal Framework

Article 226 of the Constitution: Empowers High Courts to issue writs throughout their territorial jurisdiction. A petition is maintainable where the cause of action (wholly or partly) arises.

Notification dated 23.12.1976: The Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court clearly demarcated territorial jurisdiction:

• Jodhpur Seat: Cases from 15 districts including Jodhpur, Bikaner, Udaipur, etc.
• Jaipur Bench: Cases from 11 districts including Jaipur, Sikar, Bharatpur, Ajmer, etc.

Court's Observations

On Forum Shopping & Bench Hunting

The Court noted a "rampant" practice of bench hunting and forum shopping, where petitions are filed at wrong venues without proper cause of action, material facts about prior litigation are concealed, dummy parties are added to create artificial jurisdiction and the Registry fails to mark jurisdictional defects.

Court's Findings

• Petitions clearly pertained to Jaipur Bench jurisdiction
• No specific pleadings showed cause of action arising in Jodhpur
• Respondents 5 & 6 (private nursing associations at Jodhpur) appeared to be "created entities" for establishing jurisdiction - they didn't even appear despite service
• Registry failed to object to maintainability despite obvious jurisdictional defects

Immediate Orders:

• Cost of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed on 12 petitioners who filed at wrong venue, payable to Rajasthan Legal Service Authority within 2 weeks
• Cost subject to final outcome of petitions

Legal Principles

• Territorial Jurisdiction Matters: High Courts have internal territorial divisions that must be respected
• Cause of Action Test: Petitions must be filed where cause of action arises (wholly or partly)
• Forum Shopping is Prohibited: Filing at convenient forums rather than proper jurisdiction is abuse of process
• Costs as Deterrent: Courts can impose exemplary costs to discourage malpractice
• Duty of Disclosure: Litigants must disclose prior/concurrent litigation; concealment is contemptuous
• Registry's Role: Court registry should screen petitions for jurisdictional compliance