Summary: After taking early retirement on medical grounds and subsequently passing away, his wife filed a claim for the sum assured from the insurer. The insurer repudiated the claim, stating that the revised policy did not cover early retirees. In response, respondent No. 1 filed an application for recovery of the group insurance claim and liquidated damages. The case was heard by the Insurance Tribunal, Punjab, which declined to grant liquidated damages based on the absence of a clause for such damages in the revised contract. However, the first Appellate Court held that under the implied terms of every contract of insurance, liquidated damages should be granted if the claim is not settled within ninety days without any fault of the claimant. Additionally, the Insurance Tribunal ruled that the legal heirs of the assured person had no standing to claim liquidated damages since the assured person was not a party to the group insurance contract. The first Appellate Court rejected this understanding, stating that group insurance is designed to provide benefits to the family of the assured person, and the insurer had already entertained the claim and paid the sum assured to the family. The Supreme Court, after considering both judgments, upheld the reasoning of the first Appellate Court and dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that the insurer's repudiation of the claim based on the revised contract was not lawful, and the legal heirs were entitled to receive liquidated damages under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The summary also mentions that the contract became effective after the repudiation letter was issued, and the insurer failed to prove that its failure to pay the claim within the stipulated time was due to circumstances beyond its control. As a result, the appeal was deemed without merit and dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Summary: Deduction of Incentive Bonus and / or Additional Incentive Bonus from Operational Cost of Area Managers of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan is unlawful being against the express terms and conditions of Appointment Letters in the absence of anything to the contrary in the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973.

Summary: The dispute centered around the interpretation of the term "total loss" in a contract between an insurance company (the appellant) and an individual (the contesting respondent) who purchased a damaged motor vehicle from the insurance company. The insurance company had settled the claim of the insured and sold the damaged vehicle to the contesting respondent as salvage for a sum of Rs. 130,000. The contesting respondent spent a substantial amount on repairing the vehicle but faced difficulties in registering it with the motor vehicle authority due to an existing registration under the same number.The central issue was whether the term "total loss" in the contract referred to the vehicle being reduced to mere wreckage or whether the vehicle retained its character as a motor vehicle, albeit in a damaged state. The insurance company argued that the term referred to the vehicle being a total loss, i.e., mere wreckage, and therefore, it had no liability beyond the sale of the salvage. On the other hand, the contesting respondent contended that the term meant the vehicle was a constructive total loss, and he had the right to use and register it as a motor vehicle.The court analyzed the contract and held that the term "total loss" was ambiguous and should be interpreted against the party that drafted the contract, i.e., the insurance company. Thus, the court ruled that the contesting respondent had purchased a damaged motor vehicle, and the insurance company was liable for the loss suffered by the respondent due to its failure to register the vehicle. Consequently, the court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and decreed the suit in favor of the contesting respondent. The appeal was dismissed, and the insurance company was held responsible for the loss incurred by the contesting respondent.

Summary: The appellant in the case was the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, and the respondent was Atta Ur Rehman.The appeal centered around a life insurance policy taken out by Mr. Abdul Rehman with the appellant insurance company on 01.08.2002. Mr. Abdul Rehman passed away on 07.02.2010, and his legal heir, Atta Ur Rehman, lodged a claim under the policy. However, the claim was rejected by the insurance company without specifying a reason for the rejection.Atta Ur Rehman then initiated legal proceedings before the Insurance Tribunal, claiming that the rejection of the claim was unjustified. The Tribunal ruled in favor of Atta Ur Rehman and decreed the claim in the sum of Rs. 400,000, which was the insured amount. The insurance company appealed this decision to the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed.Subsequently, the insurance company appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, where leave to appeal was granted. The main contention raised by the insurance company before the Supreme Court was that there had been a breach of the duty of utmost good faith by the insured (Mr. Abdul Rehman) as he had failed to disclose a pre-existing heart condition and diabetes at the time of taking out the insurance policy.The Supreme Court, in its judgment, analyzed the duty of utmost good faith in insurance contracts and the provisions of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, related to misstatements and fraud in life insurance policies. The Court noted that the duty of disclosure extends to facts known or deemed to be known by the insured and not to the insurer. It also considered Section 80 of the Ordinance, which provides protection to the insured after two years from the date the policy was effected, and the insurer cannot call into question any inaccurate or false statements made by the insured unless fraud is established.After examining the evidence and considering the medical reports and statements made by the insured at the time of policy issuance, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant (insurance company) failed to show fraudulent misrepresentation or suppression of material facts by the insured. Therefore, the Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal, affirming the claim in favor of Atta Ur Rehman.This judgment sets a precedent reaffirming the importance of utmost good faith in insurance contracts and the protection provided to insured parties under Section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.

Summary: [the articles of association confer power on a particular person to institute legal action, the lack of a board resolution does not invalidate the suit] The appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the absence of a board resolution should not invalidate the institution of the suit. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments and held that if the articles of association confer power on a particular person to institute legal action, the lack of a board resolution does not invalidate the suit. The court also noted that any defect in the proceedings can be cured through ratification or the subsequent filing of a board resolution. Considering these principles, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Lahore High Court's judgment. The tribunal's judgment, which had granted the insurance claim, was restored. The court emphasized that the insurance company did not challenge the merits of the claim before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's claim was upheld.

Summary: The issue revolved around the calculation of liquidated damages on late settlement of insurance claims under the Insurance Ordinance (XXXII of 2000). The court, presided by Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, emphasizes the method of computation of liquidated damages, ruling against compounding them from one month to the next. Precedents, including Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Mst. Anwar Gulzar (2012 CLD 1014), are cited, advocating the calculation of base rates separately for each monthly rest. The judgment underscored that the compounding method was not allowed, and claimants cannot demand settlement of liquidated damages on such terms. The court dismissed the notion that the Supreme Court set aside the relevant judgment, upholding its validity. Despite setting aside the order directing the return of the amount already consumed by the respondent, the court directs the recalculation of the remaining unpaid period based on its established principles. In conclusion, the appeal was accepted, and the matter is remanded for the recalculated determination of liquidated damages, adhering to the court's established legal principles.

Summary: Background:The legal question regarding the scope of appeal provided under section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 ("Ordinance") was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The matter stemmed from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30.05.2018, concerning the closure of the petitioner's right to file a written reply by the Insurance Tribunal under the Ordinance.---Issues:Whether the constitutional petition challenging the Tribunal's order is maintainable, considering the availability of a statutory appeal under section 124(2) of the Ordinance.Clarification of the legal position regarding the scope of appeal under section 124(2) of the Ordinance.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court analyzed section 124 of the Ordinance, which distinguishes between decisions of the Tribunal that are final and those subject to appeal. It noted that while section 124(1) prohibits questioning certain Tribunal decisions, section 124(2) provides for appeals against decisions regarding insurance claims or prescribed penalties above a specified amount. However, not all Tribunal decisions are appealable under section 124(2).The court emphasized that the statutory appeal under section 124(2) is limited to final decisions on insurance claims or penalties, excluding miscellaneous decisions made during proceedings. It asserted that while legislative intent aims for expeditious claim resolution, it does not preclude constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.Recognizing the constitutional court's authority, the court held that orders like the one closing the petitioner's right to file a written statement fall outside section 124(2)'s purview and are challengeable under Article 199. It set aside the Tribunal's order and the impugned High Court decision, directing the Tribunal to proceed with the case and decide it expeditiously.Acknowledging the conflicting interpretations of section 124 among High Courts, the court entertained the petitions in the interest of justice. It granted special permission to an advocate not registered with the Supreme Court due to his familiarity with the case and the prolonged pendency of the insurance claim since 2015.---Citations/Precedents:Arshad Mehmood v. Commissioner/Delimitation Authority, Gujranwala and others (PLD 2014 Lahore 221)Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2001 SC 607)Mrs. Shahida Zahir Abbasi and 4 others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1996 SC 632)Malik Muhammed Mukhtar, through Legal Heirs v. Province of Punjab through Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Bahawalpur and others (PLD 2005 Lah. 251)Miss Asma Jilani v. The Government of the Punjab and another (PLD 1972 SC 139)Government of West Pakistan and another v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14)Federation of Pakistan and another v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar (PLD 1986 SC 26)---Quote:Scope of Section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.

Summary: Background:Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd (the insurer) appealed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of their application under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) challenging the judgment of the Insurance Tribunal.---Issues:Whether the insurer's application under section 12(2) CPC was maintainable.Whether the insurer's challenge based on the ground of limitation was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the insurer's application under section 12(2) CPC was not maintainable. The insurer had previously exhausted multiple remedies against the judgment of the Insurance Tribunal, including review jurisdiction and objection petitions. Therefore, the doctrine of constructive res judicata barred the insurer from seeking annulment of the judgment through another channel of remedy.Additionally, the Court found that the insurer's challenge based on limitation was not valid. The insurer failed to raise the issue of limitation in the earlier proceedings before the Insurance Tribunal, which resulted in the respondent having no opportunity to contest it. The doctrine of equitable estoppel also applied, as the insurer's conduct induced the insured to believe that the claim would be settled, thereby preventing the insured from approaching the Insurance Tribunal earlier.

Summary: The Ombudsman had issued an order in response to the complaint, noting that since the insurance company had accepted the claim, there was no maladministration. The Ombudsman's order referred the matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) for necessary action. The court observed that the petitioner had not disputed the claim and had already made part payment. The petitioner had expressed reservations about the loss apportionment process and had approached the SECP for this matter. The court raised the question of whether the Ombudsman was authorized to delegate responsibilities to another authority. Despite the petitioner's argument that the reference to the SECP was legitimate, the court found that such delegation was not permissible without explicit statutory authorization. The court noted that the petitioner initially accepted the claim but later challenged its position. The court decided that the legality of the Ombudsman's order needed to be addressed before other considerations. The Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 was cited, stating that no authority could assume jurisdiction over matters pending with or decided by an Ombudsman. Consequently, the court ruled that the Ombudsman's order was not legally sustainable. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Ombudsman for reconsideration. The Ombudsman was instructed to provide a hearing to the parties and decide the complaint based on the available records, in accordance with the law, within a month.

Summary: The case involved an Electrical Engineer, who purchased a Life Insurance Policy in 2006. After his death in 2007, his widow, claimed the insured sum, which was initially declined by the insurance company. The matter went to the Insurance Tribunal, where evidence was presented from both parties. The appellant argued that the policy was obtained through fraud and concealment of pre-insurance illness, making it unenforceable. They also claimed that the time-barred nature of the case should lead to its dismissal. The respondent countered these arguments, stating that there was no evidence of misrepresentation and that the tribunal's decision was correct. The court analyzed the evidence and arguments from both sides. It found that the claim was not time-barred, considering the acknowledgment of liability by the insurance company and the extended period of limitation. The court also rejected the appellant's argument about fraud and concealment, stating that the evidence presented by the insurance company was based on hearsay and lacked legal relevance. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision of the Insurance Tribunal, awarding the claimed amount and liquidated damages to the respondent. The appeal was dismissed.