The Rajasthan Royals cricket team is embroiled in a decade-long legal battle with United India Insurance Company over an insurance claim worth Rs 82 lakh related to S Sreesanth’s injury in 2012. The dispute has reached the Supreme Court, with the team arguing that Sreesanth’s absence from the season was due to a fresh knee injury, while the insurance company claims that a pre-existing toe injury was the reason. The insurance company had denied the claim, stating that Sreesanth had failed to disclose the pre-existing injury at the time of the policy.
The Rajasthan Royals maintained that Sreesanth’s toe injury was not significant enough to prevent him from playing, and that he had continued to represent the team despite carrying the injury. The team argued that the knee injury sustained during the insured period was the reason for his absence from the 2012 season. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had earlier ruled in favor of the Rajasthan Royals, directing the insurance company to honor the claim.
However, the insurance company appealed to the Supreme Court, which has requested further documents, including Sreesanth’s fitness certificate, to clarify the matter. During oral observations, the Supreme Court hinted at siding with the Rajasthan Royals, suggesting that if the insurance company had knowledge of the old injury, they could have either denied issuing the policy or charged a higher premium.
The case has significant implications for sports contracts and insurance claims in the Indian Premier League (IPL). The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to set a precedent for similar cases in the future. The court’s observation that the insurance company should have either denied the policy or charged a higher premium if they had knowledge of the pre-existing injury may indicate that the Rajasthan Royals’ claim may stand stronger.
The case is being closely watched by the sports and insurance industries, as it could have far-reaching implications for how teams and players approach insurance claims and contract negotiations. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to provide clarity on the matter and establish a precedent for similar cases in the future. The case highlights the importance of transparency and disclosure in insurance contracts, and the need for clear communication between teams, players, and insurance companies.