The Indian Premier League (IPL) team Rajasthan Royals is embroiled in a long-standing dispute with the United India Insurance Company over an insurance claim filed due to an injury sustained by player S. Sreesanth in 2012. The Royals had taken out a “Special Contingency Insurance for Player Loss of Fees Cover” policy for the 2012 IPL season, which covered losses incurred due to a player’s absence from the tournament. Sreesanth, one of the insured players, suffered a knee injury during a practice match on March 28, 2012, which rendered him unfit to play in the tournament.
The Rajasthan Royals submitted a claim of over Rs 82 lakh to the insurance company, but it was rejected on the grounds that Sreesanth had a pre-existing toe injury that he had not disclosed. The insurance company argued that this injury would have prevented Sreesanth from playing in the tournament anyway, and therefore, the claim was not valid. However, the Royals maintained that Sreesanth’s knee injury was the reason for his absence from the tournament, and not the pre-existing toe injury.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had previously ruled in favor of the Rajasthan Royals, ordering the insurance company to pay the claim. However, the insurance company has appealed this decision in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has asked for additional documents, including Sreesanth’s fitness certificate, to determine whether the pre-existing toe injury was disclosed to the insurance company.
During a recent hearing, the Supreme Court bench asked whether the IPL franchise had informed the insurance company about Sreesanth’s toe injury. The bench also questioned whether Sreesanth should have been covered under the policy if the insurance company had known about the toe injury. The Rajasthan Royals’ lawyer, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, argued that Sreesanth’s toe injury did not prevent him from playing, and that the knee injury he sustained during the insured period was the reason for his absence from the tournament. The case is ongoing, with the Supreme Court yet to deliver a verdict.