Summary: The crux of the present judgment is whether the President of Pakistan was competent to assume jurisdiction in respect of a challenge, in the nature of review proceedings, to an order rendered by the Federal Insurance Ombudsman.Facts and Background:A fire occurred on 23.06.2016, and the petitioner reported it to the insurance company, respondent No. 2, on 24.06.2016. A claim was submitted on 02.07.2016. After dissatisfaction with the insurance company's response, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Federal Insurance Ombudsman Pakistan, which was determined on 10.10.2017 ("Ombudsman Order"). The Ombudsman Order directed the insurance company to compensate the petitioner.Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the President of Pakistan, which set aside the Ombudsman Order ("Impugned Order"). --- Decision:5. The primary issue was whether the President of Pakistan had the jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the Ombudsman Order. The petitioner's argument, based on provisions of the Ordinance, was overridden by the Act, which gave the President jurisdiction.Section 24 of the Act stated that its provisions had primacy over other laws. The Act defined "relevant legislation" to include the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.The petitioner's reliance on the overridden provisions of the Ordinance was unfounded. The forum established by the Act for challenging an Ombudsman's order was the President of Pakistan, and this was used by respondent No. 2, leading to the Impugned Order.Therefore, the Impugned Order was not jurisdictionally flawed. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Summary: Insurance of the Hypothecated stock & availing finance facility from the bank against the said Hypothecated stock an two different agreements having distinct consequence.---The appellant's claim was based on a finance agreement wherein Rs. 1 million was disbursed to the respondents as running finance. The respondents did not repay any amount, leading to the outstanding balance. However, the respondents argued that the appellant failed to pursue an insurance claim for a fire incident that affected the hypothecated stock, resulting in their loss.The High Court analyzed the finance agreement and the insurance policy, determining that the respondents' claim was distinct from the appellant's claim for recovery. The court also found that the respondents did not provide sufficient evidence to support their contention that the appellant's negligence caused their loss.Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgment, and granted a decree to the appellant for Rs. 1.2 million, representing the buyback price from the respondents, along with the cost of funds as provided under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001.

Summary: Background:In Civil Petitions No. 1191, 1192, and 1193 of 2017, the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment of January 16, 2017, which set aside SECP's orders from October 28, 2009. These orders directed various insurance companies to pay claims arising from insurance policies.---Issues:Whether the Insurance Ombudsman had jurisdiction to adjudicate claims arising from insurance policies.Whether the SECP, as an appellate adjudicatory authority, could challenge the Lahore High Court's judgment.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the Insurance Ombudsman's jurisdiction was limited to cases of maladministration by insurance companies. The SECP, being the final appellate authority against the Ombudsman's orders, had performed its duties under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. Once SECP passed an order on appeal, it became functus-officio, and the Ombudsman's order was final unless challenged through judicial review. The Court emphasized the impartiality of both the Ombudsman and the SECP and their duty to settle disputes between insurers and insured. Additionally, it questioned the SECP's standing to challenge the High Court's judgment in cases where the policyholders had not contested the findings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions for lacking merit.---Citations/Precedents:Syed Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnan and Others, (AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477)Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail v. Spl. Director Enforcement [(2007)8 Supreme Court Cases 257]M.S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society and others [(2016)9 Supreme Court Cases 263]---Quote:Where an insurance company, or the official of an insurance company or complainant is aggrieved by the decision of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, only course available to an aggrieved party is to invoke jurisdiction of judicial review of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.

Summary: The cases involved widows and heirs of deceased policy holders who claimed that the Insurance Company either denied or partially paid out their insurance claims. The central issue was whether these claimants should have reported their grievances to the Ombudsman due to alleged maladministration or pursued their cases through the Insurance Tribunal. The Court examined relevant sections of the Insurance Ordinance, noting that the Insurance Tribunal deals with claims filed by policyholders against insurance companies, while the Ombudsman handles complaints of maladministration by insurance companies. The Court determined that the claimants, as aggrieved persons, were justified in seeking recourse through the Ombudsman for alleged unjust and arbitrary decisions by the Insurance Company. The Court also mentioned that there is an appellate remedy available, allowing parties to challenge Ombudsman decisions by appealing to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. As the Insurance Company did not utilize this remedy, the petitions were dismissed, both due to the appropriate legal course being taken and the availability of an alternate remedy. Overall, the petitions were dismissed on the grounds that the claimants were justified in approaching the Ombudsman for their grievances, and the presence of an alternative appellate remedy further supported the dismissal.

Summary: The primary issue in the case revolved around the minimum solvency requirement as specified in section 36 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000. The company argued that it should be treated differently from insurance companies with paid-up capital due to its unique status as a mutual insurance company. The court rejected Asian Mutual's argument, stating that the requirement of minimum solvency was not linked to the presence or absence of paid-up capital but was applicable to all insurers of non-life insurance business. The judgment upheld the validity of Rule 13(1) and dismissed the constitutional petition and the commercial appeal.In summary, this judgment sheet outlines a legal case involving an insurance company's challenge to regulatory requirements related to minimum solvency. The court upheld the regulatory rules and requirements and ruled against the petitioner.

Summary: -United Insurance Company is a Private entity, hence no writ lie against private entity.- Determination of insurance amount is factual controversy in writ jurisdiction it cannot be resolved.

Summary: All claims, whether directly arising from or relatable to a contract of insurance, are covered under the provisions of section 46 of the Insurance Act, 1938. All such suits are to be filed in a District Court of competent jurisdiction or depending upon the territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary value of the suit, in the principal seat of Sindh High Court or the Islamabad High Court as the case may be instead of the District Court. However, no such suit can be entertained in the Civil Court---The dispute revolves around determining the correct venue for filing lawsuits under the repealed Insurance Act, 1938. The petitioners, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, challenged the decision of the Lahore High Court, which ruled that suits related to insurance policies executed under the repealed Act should be filed in the Courts of District Judges, rather than Civil Courts. The petitioners argued that suits should be filed in Civil Courts of appropriate jurisdiction based on Section 46 of the Insurance Act, 1938. However, the judges rejected the petitioners' arguments. They emphasized that the definition of 'Court' provided in Section 2(6) of the Insurance Act, 1938, which includes the principal Civil Court of Original jurisdiction in a district, prevails for determining the correct venue for filing lawsuits related to insurance policies. The judges reasoned that the special law (Insurance Act, 1938) supersedes the provisions of the general law (Code of Civil Procedure) in determining the forum for legal proceedings. The judgment concluded that all claims arising directly or indirectly from a contract of insurance fall under the jurisdiction of District Courts, the principal seat of Sindh High Court, or Islamabad High Court, depending on the territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary value of the suit. Civil Courts are not competent to entertain such suits. In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Lahore High Court's decision regarding the correct forum for filing lawsuits related to insurance policies under the repealed Insurance Act, 1938.

Summary: The main issue in this case was related to a life insurance policy purchased by the deceased wife of respondent No. 2, with respondent No. 2 being named as the nominee in the policy. The petitioner filed an application under Section 162(2) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, along with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for the rejection of the insurance application, arguing that it was not maintainable without the prior sanction of the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) as required by Section 162 of the Ordinance. The judgment ultimately dismissed the petitioner's claims and upheld the rejection of the insurance application, citing that the requirement of prior sanction from the SECP mentioned in Section 162 of the Ordinance applies to criminal proceedings against insurance companies or their employees but not to the filing of insurance claims. The judgment reasoned that the provisions of Section 162 should be considered in conjunction with the entire scheme of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The judgment also emphasized the need for a purposive and contextual interpretation of the law to avoid hardship, futility, absurdity, or uncertainty, and to ensure that the remedy provided by the law is consistent with the intention of the legislature. The Lahore High Court's judgment clarified that the requirement for prior SECP sanction under Section 162 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, is applicable to criminal proceedings against insurance companies or their employees but not to the filing of insurance claims, and it upheld the rejection of the insurance claim in this case.

Summary: The appellants filed an application for leave to defend the suit, admitting the sanction of the loan and execution of finance agreement. They argued that they were unable to fulfill the repayment terms due to a fire incident at their petrol pump, which caused substantial losses. They contended that the respondent-bank should have sought reimbursement from the insurance company for the loss, as the hypothecated stock of goods was insured at the bank's direction. The respondent-bank's argument was that the insurance policy was obtained with the consent of the appellants and was meant to secure the liability for repayment. After hearing both sides, the Court examined the facts and arguments. The Court observed that the insurance policy was executed solely between the appellants and the insurance company, with no clause obligating the bank to file a claim with the insurance company for any outstanding liabilities in case of default. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

Summary: Section 14 Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance (Balochistan) (XII of 2007) and Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Overriding effect of the Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance (Balochistan), 2007---Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance (Balochistan) (XII of 2007)-------S. 14--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Civil service---Group Insurance, payment of contribution to employees upon retirement---Scope---Petitioners, inter alia, impugned clause of a notification issued subsequent to thepromulgation of the Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance (Balochistan), 2007whereby it was specified that employees who retired between 1-7-2007 and 21-12-2008would be paid the actual amount of their contribution to the group insurance plus areasonable increase---Contention of the petitioners was that there was no distinction betweenold and newly retired employees in the impugned clause and having retired before 1-7-2007; they were entitled to be paid their contribution to the group insurance as a right since ithad been deducted from their own pay---Validity---Said clause of the notification was subjudice before the Supreme Court and High Court declined to give findings to that extent---Impugned notification, otherwise, only described enhancement of assured sum toemployees and therefore had to be read with S.14 and Schedule of the Ordinance---Petitioners had failed to question the Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance(Balochistan), 2007 which had an overriding effect on other laws, rules, notifications etc.---Impugned notification, therefore, was no longer in the field---Petitioners, in view of the stateof facts, and not having challenged the Ordinance, had no case---Constitutional petitions weredismissed, in circumstances.