#insurance policy

Gujarat High Court ruled that an insurer cannot be compelled to pay interest on workmen's compensation when the employer-liability policy expressly excludes such liability. The decision overturns the Labour Court's interest award, reinforcing the primacy of policy terms. Employers and insurers must review policy wording to avoid unexpected interest obligations.

The Chandigarh State Consumer Commission ruled that a borrower’s signed consent form for an insurance policy tied to a home loan constitutes valid agreement, even without proof of policy document delivery. This sets a critical precedent for financial institutions linking insurance to loans, shifting the burden of proof to consumers claiming non-consent after signing.

When a bank acts as an insurance agent and compulsorily enrolls a loan borrower in a policy, the borrower is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The commission ruled that even if the risk location was incorrectly stated in the policy, the insurer cannot deny liability if both parties acted on a shared understanding of coverage - a critical win for small business owners caught in banking-driven insurance mandates.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals cannot adjudicate claims by vehicle owners seeking compensation for damage to their own insured vehicles from insurers. Such disputes are contractual in nature and must be resolved in civil or consumer forums, clarifying the boundary between statutory tort claims and insurance policy enforcement.

Bombay High Court rules that shifting insured property to a new location without prior insurer consent under Clause 13 of a fire insurance policy automatically voids coverage, reinforcing strict contractual compliance. The judgment underscores the non-negotiable nature of policy terms for businesses and financial institutions relying on bancassurance arrangements.

The State Consumer Commission holds that supplementary documents may be admitted until the court becomes functus officio, reinforcing flexibility in consumer dispute resolution for substantive justice.