A long-standing dispute over a knee injury sustained by former Indian cricketer S. Sreesanth during the 2012 Indian Premier League (IPL) has reached the Supreme Court. The injury occurred during a practice session in Jaipur, and Sreesanth was subsequently ruled out of the season. The Rajasthan Royals, who had insured their squad under a special contingency policy worth over Rs 8.7 crore, filed a claim of about Rs 82 lakh with their insurer, United India Insurance Co. However, the insurance company rejected the claim, citing non-disclosure of pre-existing injuries.
The insurer maintained that Sreesanth had been carrying toe and knee problems since 2010-11, and therefore the claim was not payable. The matter eventually reached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which directed the insurer to honour the policy and pay Rs 82.8 lakh with 9% annual simple interest from December 2012. The insurer has now approached the Supreme Court, challenging the NCDRC’s order and arguing that the Commission overlooked key facts, including Sreesanth’s pre-existing toe injury.
The insurer contends that Sreesanth was bound to disclose this information under the principle of utmost good faith, and that failure to do so makes the contract voidable. The company has relied on previous Supreme Court rulings to submit that the non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions amounts to suppression and makes the contract voidable. The insurer has also cited a medical expert’s report, which claims that Sreesanth’s knee condition during the 2012 IPL was not the result of a fresh or accidental event, but rather part of a continuum of injuries dating back to 2010.
The case has been adjourned for two weeks to allow the insurer to place additional documents on record, including the insurance application and disclosures made at the time of the policy. The Supreme Court will hear the case again after the insurer has had a chance to submit these documents. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the insurance industry and the sports world, particularly with regard to the disclosure of pre-existing injuries and the principle of utmost good faith. The court’s decision will provide clarity on the obligations of insurers and insured parties in such cases, and will help to establish a precedent for future disputes.