Dismissed¶50

The Manager (Crm) v. Sri a v Nagarajan

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2025WA/1455/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LIC v. A.V. Nagarajan; WA No. 1455 of 2024 (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka, decided 11-03-2025 (N.V. Anjaria CJ, M.I. Arun J, per M.I. Arun J). Keywords: Jeevan Saral policy; maturity sum assured ambiguity; death benefit vs accident benefit vs maturity benefit; policy schedule showing Rs.10,00,000/- twice; Insurance Ombudsman award upheld; maturity claim of Rs.10,00,000/- vs LIC's Rs.1,74,362/-; annual premium Rs.48,040/-; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; writ appeal dismissed; NC: 2025:KHC:10400-DB.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant. The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the Insurance Ombudsman award and the learned Single Judge's order, i.e., settlement of the maturity claim for maturity sum assured of Rs.10,00,000/- together with loyalty additions if any, without penal interest. ¶50

The Manager (Crm) Vs Sri a v Nagarajan — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

What maturity benefit is payable to the respondent under the 'Jeevan Saral' policy - Rs.1,74,362/- as contended by LIC, or Rs.10,00,000/- being the maturity sum assured as found by the Insurance Ombudsman and the learned Single Judge? +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

The sum of Rs.10,00,000/- mentioned in the policy schedule column has to be considered as the sum assured upon maturity of the policy.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

The appellant failed to show from the insurance contract or the policy how the respondent would be entitled to only Rs.1,74,362/-; there is no mention of that amount anywhere in the contract.

¶49

Key takeaways

No error is found either in the order of the Insurance Ombudsman or in the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.3257/2021.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act, by Life Insurance Corporation of India against dismissal of its writ petition challenging an Insurance Ombudsman (Karnataka) award concerning a 'Jeevan Saral' policy (premium Rs.48,040/- p.a. for ten years). The policy schedule showed 'Maturity Sum Assured', 'Death benefit Sum Assured' and 'Accident Benefit Sum Assured' columns with Rs.10,00,000/- entered twice. LIC contended that the two entries pertained to death and accident benefits only and that the entitlement on maturity was Rs.1,74,362/-. HOLDING: LIC failed to point to any term of the contract supporting Rs.1,74,362/-, and that figure appears nowhere in the contract; therefore Rs.10,00,000/- must be read as the sum assured on maturity. No error was found in the Ombudsman award or in the Single Judge's order; the writ appeal was dismissed, upholding settlement of the maturity claim at Rs.10,00,000/- with loyalty additions if any, without penal interest. Bench: N.V. Anjaria, CJ and M.I. Arun, J.; judgment delivered per M.I. Arun, J.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10400-DB WA No. 1455 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1455 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGER (CRM) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE-1 J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SECRETARY (LEGAL), LEGAL CELL ZONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN MANGAL HAYES ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI HALLUR SHIVAYOGI BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI A.V. NAGARAJAN S/O LATE ANANTHA SASTRY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.42/28, 39^TH ''A'' CROSS 11^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI ADITYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:10400-DB WA No. 1455 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.3257 OF 2021 (GM-RES).

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

¶24

Aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as it relates to Writ Petition No.3257/2021, the petitioner therein has preferred this intra court appeal with the following prayers:

¶25

"Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to:

¶26

Set aside the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3257/2021 (GM-RES);

¶27

Grant such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10400-DB WA No. 1455 of 2024

¶29

The appellant is Life Insurance Corporation of India and the respondent is a policy holder called 'Jeevan Saral'. He had availed of the policy and paid a premium of Rs.48,040/- per annum for a period of ten years. After maturity, the respondent was informed that he is entitled for a maturity benefit of Rs.1,74,362/- by the appellant. Aggrieved by the same and on the ground that the respondent is actually entitled to a maturity benefit of Rs.10,00,000/-, the respondent approached the office of Insurance Ombudsman (Karnataka), which accepted the contention of the

¶30

respondent and passed the following award:

¶31

"AWARD

¶32

Taking into account, the facts & circumstances of the case, and the submissions made by both the parties during the course of Personal hearing the RI is directed to settle the maturity claim under the said policy for maturity sum assured of `.10,00,000/- together with loyalty additions if any as per policy terms and conditions without penal interest.

¶33

The Complaint is 'Allowed'."

¶34

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferred Writ Petition No.3257/2021 and prayed for setting aside the award. The learned Single Judge did not find any error in the same and has dismissed the writ petition, against which this writ appeal is filed.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:10400-DB WA No. 1455 of 2024

¶37

The contention of the appellant is that as per the terms of the contract, the respondent is entitled to a benefit of Rs.1,74,362/only and not Rs.10,00,000/- as held by the Insurance Ombudsman and the learned Single Judge.

¶38

Per contra, the respondent justifies the orders passed by the Insurance Ombudsman and the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.

¶39

The maturity amount to be paid to the respondent depends upon the terms and conditions of the insurance contract entered into between the appellant and the respondent. As per the insurance policy issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent, the column mentioning the sum assured reads as under:

¶40

"DIVISIONAL OFFICE: BANGALORE DIVISION I Branch Office:

¶41

YESHWANTHPUR BRANCH 61D

¶42

1 Policy No 2 Date of Commencement	Maturity Sum Assured (Rs.) Death benefit Sum Assured under main plan (Rs.)	Installment Premium for main Plan (Rs.) Installment Accident Benefit Premium (Rs.)
3 Date of Commencement Risk 4 Table & Term	Accident Benefit Sum Assured (Rs.) Term Rider Sum Assured (Rs.)	Installment Term Rider Premium (Rs.) Total Installment Premium (Rs.)
616218516 28/05/2010	1000000	47040.00 1000.00
29/05/2010	1000000	.00
165 10		48040.00

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10400-DB WA No. 1455 of 2024

¶44

The contention of the appellant is that the sum assured of Rs.10,00,000/- mentioned twice in the aforementioned column pertains to death benefit and accident benefit and does not pertain to sum assured on maturity of the policy, if the insured does not die or suffer any accident. According to the appellant, the respondent is entitled to the sum assured upon completion of ten years i.e., on maturity of the policy would be Rs.1,74,362/-.

¶45

The Insurance Ombudsman, upon verification of the policy, has concluded that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- mentioned in the aforementioned column should be considered as a sum payable to the insured upon maturity of the policy and the other Rs.10,00,000/- towards death or an accident claim. It has further come to the conclusion that nowhere the terms and conditions of the policy mentions that the respondent is entitled to only a sum of Rs.1,74,362/- as contended by the appellant herein and based on the terms and conditions of the contract has entertained the petition of the respondent herein and has passed the award. The decision of the Insurance Ombudsman has been found to be correct by the learned Single Judge and accepting the reasoning given by the Ombudsman, the writ petition has been dismissed.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:10400-DB WA No. 1455 of 2024

¶48

The appellant in the course of the proceedings has failed to

¶49

show from the insurance contract or the policy issued in favour of the respondent, how the respondent would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,74,362/- only as contended by the appellant. There is no mention of the said amount any where in the contract. The policy issued mentions a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in the column referred to above and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, Rs.10,00,000/- has to be considered as the sum assured upon the maturity of the policy. We do not find any error either in the order of the Insurance Ombudsman or in the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.3257/2021.

¶50

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶51

SD/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶52

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶53

hkh.

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

The Manager (Crm) v. Sri a v Nagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager (Crm) v. Sri a v Nagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Y Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Prashant Vs State of Karnataka

State Load Dispatch Centre Operated by Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs M/S Shree Renuka Sugars Limited

K T Lakshmi Narasimhaiah Vs Sri Thushar Girinath

S N Thippeswamy Vs the Director Agricultural Marketing

A v Nagarajan Vs Mr. C.R. Aravind