2020 PLP 1844 (SCMR)
Messrs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. Begum RASHIDA JAMIL — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1844 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. Begum RASHIDA JAMIL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), (a) Insurance Rules, 2002 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1844 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), (a) Insurance Rules, 2002 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1844 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1844 (SCMR) (Messrs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. Begum RASHIDA JAMIL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ibrar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Liaqat Ali Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.F.A. No. 1024 of 2012)
R. 12
Statement and declaration required of insurance agents
Primary school teacher/insurance agent
Declaration given by insurance agent at time of his re-appointment in the year 2002, that "I am not working for any other insurer and in future also I will not work for any other insurer while associated with the Corporation without written permission of the Corporation"
Whether such declaration covered employment of agent as school teacher
Held, that it was clear that the said declaration given by the deceased agent at the time of his re-appointment in 2002 did not include any undertaking with reference to his employment with any other private or government entity
In fact, the deceased was a primary school teacher with the Education department of the Provincial Government
Such employment was not covered by the declaration given by him at the time of his re-appointment
Consequently, the denial of his insurance benefits by the State Life Insurance Corporation on the basis of his previous declaration in 1997 (before re-appointment) was unfair and unlawful
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
S. 115
Employee of State Life Insurance Corporation ('the Corporation')
Group insurance, self-subscribed compulsory insurance and field self-subscribed group insurance
Section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000
Whether applicable
Perusal of provisions of the S. 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 made it clear that the jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal had nexus with the date of issuance of a policy of insurance by the insurer after the commencement of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000
In the present case, three types of insurance schemes were availed by the deceased, i.e. group insurance, self-subscribed compulsory insurance and field self-subscribed group insurance, which were meant for employees and not for policy holders who secured the issuance of life insurance policies from the Corporation
Said schemes were connected with the day to day employment of the deceased and other employees of the Corporation
No policy was issued to the employees in respect of any of said insurance covers provided to employees
Consequently, S. 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 had no application to the present case
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
It is common ground that the respondent's deceased husband (the deceased) was issued a fresh appointment letter after the promulgation of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 and Insurance Rules, 2002. The relevant declaration made in the (respondent's) application by the deceased for his re-appointment in 2002 is recorded as follows: iv) I am not working for any other insurer and in future also I will not work for any other insurer while associated with the Corporation without written permission of the Corporation." This declaration is materially different from the declaration at the time of the initial appointment of the deceased in the year 1997 as Sales Officer of the appellant insurance company. The material portion of that declaration is reproduced below: "I also hereby declare that I am a full time bona fide worker of State Life and not doing any other Service, Government/Private or any business." It is clear from the above that the declaration given by the deceased at the time of his re-appointment in 2002 does not include any undertaking with reference to his employment with any other private or government entity. In fact, the deceased was a primary School Teacher in a Masjad Maktab School with the Education department of the Provincial Government. That employment to our mind is not covered by the declaration given by him at the time of his re-appointment. Consequently, the denial of his insurance benefits by the appellant on the basis of his previous declaration is unfair and unlawful.
2. The second submission by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim filed by the respondent widow of the deceased is not maintainable under section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. This contention also has no force. It is clear from the provisions of the said section that the jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal has nexus with the date of issuance of a policy of insurance by the insurer after the commencement of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. In the present case, three types of insurance schemes were availed by the deceased. These are meant for employees and not for policy holders who secure the issuance of life insurance policies from the corporation. These three types of insurance schemes are connected with the day to day employment of the deceased and other employees of the appellant. These are group insurance, self subscribed compulsory insurance and field self-subscribed group insurance. No policy is issued to the employees in respect of any of these insurance covers provided to employees. Consequently, section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance has no application to the present case. The objection of jurisdiction is without merit. The instant Civil Petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.- MWA/S-35/SC Petition dismissed.