Further to KQU 2595, being an Important matter, we would inform you about SCP Order in CA 343-L of 2020 of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan etc, VS MST Zubeda Bibi (Attachment 2.1) especially for Insurance Acquirer.
 

A.   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Through the instant appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution, the appellant/department has called in question the judgment dated 15.10.20 passed by the LHC whereby insurance appeal filed by the respondent/lady (widow of Abdul Rasheed) was allowed in the following terms:

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the order/judgment dated, passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab Lahore is set aside and the suit for recovery is decreed along with the liquidated damages as prescribed under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. No order as to costs.

B.   DETAILS

1. Brief Facts

1.1 Tersely, facts of the case leading to filing of the instant appeal are that on 10.7.2001, the husband of the respondent, namely, Abdul Rasheed, purchased an insurance policy 506812423-3 in the sum of Rs 500,000 from the appellant on the basis of yearly premium of Rs 39,740 and chosen the respondent, namely, Mst. Zubeida Bibi, as his nominee. The said premium/amount was paid up to 2002.

1.2 Abdul Rasheed died in a road accident on 24.1.2003 and a report in this regard was lodged with the Police Station Sherakot Lahore by Jhazanfar Ali  (a stranger) so also sons of the deceased, namely, Ghulam Ali and Gulam Bari, who got recorded their statements before the police that they do not want to conduct the post-mortem examination.

1.3 After completion of necessary formalities, the police handed over the dead body of the deceased to his sons, who accordingly buried their father in the village. The respondent being a nominee filed a claim with the appellant, but could not succeed, thus a suit for recovery of insurance claim was filed on 10.11.2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Lahore, which was returned on 31.5.2007 being coram non judice. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application before the Insurance Tribunal, Punjab. After framing of issues and recording of the evidence, the application was dismissed vide judgment dated 7.5.15.

1.4 Being aggrieved with the above decision, the respondent approached the LHC by filing an insurance appeal, which was allowed through the impugned judgment dated 15.10.20; hence this appeal.

2.   Learned Counsel for Appellant Submissions

The appellant contends that the impugned judgment is suffering from misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record; the LHC has not taken into consideration the provisions of Articles 117, 118, 119 and 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; the impugned judgment has been passed against the settled principles of Insurance Law; the burden of proof to establish the cause of death was on the respondent under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 which she failed to do so; that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, thus not sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. Deliberation

3.1 It transpires from the record that the husband of the respondent while purchasing the insurance policy from the appellant on 10.7.2001 had appointed the respondent as a nominee. However, the insured, namely, Abdul Rasheed, unfortunately met with a road accident and died on 24.1.2003. The report of said incident was lodged vide rappat 43 got registered by (Jhazanfar Ali, a stranger). The incident was also reported in different newspapers. The said information was received by the deceased's sons Ghulam Ali and Ghulam Bari who reached at the spot; recorded their statements before the police, however, they opted not to conduct a post-mortem examination of their father. After completion of the necessary formalities by the police, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to their sons who imparted such information to the appellant on 18.2.2003.

3.2 It reflects from the record that the appellant has never challenged the validity of death certificate; entry in the death register of concerned union council and the report lodged at police station Sherakot, Lahore which are the official documents and presumption of truth is attached with them and the same should be taken into consideration; reference is made to the case reported as Khurshid Ali and 6 others versus Shah Nazar (PLD 1992 SC 822).

3.3 The LHC has elaborately discussed every aspect of the matter either legal or factual and rightly held the respondent entitled for the insurance claim/policy. In circumstances where a person met with an accident/unnatural death, his legal heirs ordinarily avoid conducting post-mortem examination. However, if the appellant/insurer deem it to be necessary, it should have been done by itself in order to protect its rights. Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 stipulates as follows:

it shall be an implied term of every contract of insurance that where payment on a policy issued by an insurer becomes due and the person entitled thereto has complied with an the requirements, including the filling of complete papers, for claiming the payment, the insurer shall, if he fails to make payment within a period of ninety days from the date on which the payment becomes due or the date on which claimant complies with the requirements, whichever is later, pay as liquidated damages a sum calculated in the manner as specified in sub-section(2) on the amount so payable unless he proves that such failure was due to circumstances beyond his control

3.4 The record further reflects that the insurance claim was lodged by the respondent with the appellant by complying with all procedural requirements, however, the appellant has badly failed to make due payment as prescribed under the law. SCP are not convinced that the appellant has been able to make out a case for interference. The impugned judgment is based on sound and cogent reasoning. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point any illegality or infirmity, misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record which could make a basis to take a contra view other than the impugned judgment passed by the LHC.

4. Decision

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed in favour of SLIC. Above are the reasons of our short order of even date which reads as follows:

SCP heard the learned counsel for the parties. For detailed reasons to be recorded later, this appeal is dismissed.

C.   Further Details and Services

Should you require any clarification or explanations in respect of the above or otherwise, please feel free to email Mr Amsal at amsal@786tax.com with CC to info.kasbati@professional-excellence.com.

Best regards for Here & Hereafter
Asif S Kasbati (FCA, FCMA & LLB)

Managing Partner 

Kasbati & Co (1400+ Tax, Levies, Companies, Economy, Inflation, HR, Banking, Finance, etc

    Quick Commentary Service Provider and High Level 440+ Tax & Levies Laws Consultants) 

Head of Tax & Professional Excellence Services (Symbols of High Quality Practical Tax, Levies &        Corporate Training for Beginners to High Levels' Professionals) PTCL: 92-21-34329108 Mobile: 0334 322 3161 Website: kasbati.co Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/taxexcellence/ 

Google Map link: Tax Excellence  YouTube Channel Tax Excellence 

============================================================================

115+ Takaful & Insurance Quick Commentary - TIQC 1