The United India Insurance Company Limited (UIIC) has announced the final result for the Administrative Officer (AO) positions, both Generalists and Specialists (Scale-I), on May 12, 2025. The result is available in PDF format on the official UIIC website, www.uiic.co.in, and contains the roll numbers of provisionally short-listed candidates for the pre-employment medical examination.

A total of 200 posts are available for Administrative Officers, with selection based on online tests and interviews. Candidates who appeared in the UIIC AO interview exam can check their results on the official website. The details of the pre-employment medical examination, including dates and venue, will be sent to candidates via their registered email addresses.

To access the UIIC AO Result 2025, candidates can visit the official website, navigate to the ‘Careers’ section, and click on the ‘Recruitment’ section. Then, they can select the “List of Provisionally Selected Candidates for Next Stage – Administrative Officer Recruitment – 2024” to view the result PDF. The PDF contains the roll numbers of selected candidates, and candidates can press CTRL+F to search for their roll number.

The UIIC AO Result 2025 PDF mentions details such as the name of the organization, post name, roll numbers of selected candidates, and the next stage of the selection process. The cut-off marks for the UIIC AO exam 2025 will be released on the official website after the recruitment process. Only candidates whose scores match the respective category cut-off marks will be considered selected for the interview round.

Candidates can check the UIIC AO Final Result 2025 by clicking on the direct link provided or by visiting the official website. The result is available for download in PDF format, and candidates can search for their roll number using the CTRL+F function. The UIIC AO Final Cut-Off 2025 will be released later, and candidates can check it on the official website.

The UIIC AO recruitment drive aims to fill 200 posts for Administrative Officers, and the selection process involves online tests and interviews. Candidates who have qualified for the pre-employment medical examination will receive further instructions via email. The UIIC AO Result 2025 is a crucial step in the selection process, and candidates are advised to check their results and follow the instructions provided.

The United India Insurance Company (UIIC) will soon announce vacancies for Assistant posts across the country through the UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025. The registration dates for the recruitment will be released along with the notification on the company’s official website, www.uiic.co.in. The UIIC Assistant Notification PDF will carry complete details regarding the selection process, application fee, age relaxation, and more.

Overview of UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025:

• Organization: United India Insurance Company (UIIC)
• Posts: Assistant
• Vacancies: To be announced
• Category: Govt Jobs
• Mode of Application: Online
• Registration Dates: To be notified
• Education Qualification: Graduation
• Age Limit: 21 to 30 years (as on 30.09.2023)
• Salary: Rs. 37,000 per month
• Selection Process: Online Examination followed by Regional Language Test
• Official website: www.uiic.co.in

UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025 Important Dates:

• UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025 Notification: To be announced
• Last date to Apply Online for UIIC Assistant Recruitment: To be notified
• Last Date for Editing Application Details: To be notified
• Last Date for Online Payment: To be notified
• Last Date of Printing Application: To be notified
• UIIC Assistant Exam Date 2025: To be notified

UIIC Assistant Vacancy 2025:

The number of vacancies for UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025 is expected to be more than the previous year. Last year, there were 300 vacancies for various branches across the country.

UIIC Assistant Apply Online 2025:

The online application procedure for UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025 will start on the official website of United India Insurance Company (UIIC) at www.uiic.co.in. Candidates’ applications will be accepted online, and no other mode will be accepted.

UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025 Application Fee:

All applicants other than SC/ST/PwBD, Permanent Employees of the company have to pay the application fee/service charges + GST as applicable, whereas SC/ST/Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD), Permanent Employees of the Company are exempted from the application fee.

UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025 Eligibility Criteria:

• Educational Qualification: Any graduate from a recognized university and knowledge of reading, writing, and speaking of the regional language of a related state.
• Age Limit: 21 to 30 years (as on 30.09.2023)
• Upper age relaxation as per government norms will be applicable.

UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025 Selection Process:

The candidates will be shortlisted through an Online Examination followed by a Regional Language Test. The final merit list State-wise and Category-wise shall be prepared as per the marks secured by the candidates in the online examination.

UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025 Exam Pattern:

The UIIC Assistant Exam 2025 will be conducted in Online Mode with a total of 250 marks. The exam will have 200 questions, and the duration will be 120 minutes (2 hours). The objective tests except the test on “The English Language” will be bilingual (in English and Hindi). For each incorrect answer, a 1/4th mark will be deducted.

UIIC Assistant Recruitment 2025 Salary:

The initial salary for an Assistant will be Rs. 37,000 per month (for metro cities). The pay scale of UIIC Assistant will be Rs. 22405-1305(1)-23710-1425(2)-26560-1605(5)-34585-1855(2)-38295-2260(3)-45075-2345(2)-49765-2500(5)-62265. The salary structure for UIIC Assistants includes basic pay, allowances, and other benefits.

The National Consumer Commission has ruled in favor of the Andhra Cricket Association, holding United India Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service. The insurance company had wrongfully rejected a claim related to the cancellation of a One Day International cricket match that was scheduled to take place on October 14, 2014. The cancellation was due to a cyclone, which forced the organizers to call off the match.

As a result of the cancellation, the Andhra Cricket Association submitted an insurance claim to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim, leading to a dispute between the two parties. The Andhra Cricket Association then approached the National Consumer Commission, seeking redressal for the wrongful rejection of their claim.

After hearing the case, the National Consumer Commission found United India Insurance Co. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service. The commission directed the insurance company to pay a significant amount of Rs. 2,35,81,470 to the Andhra Cricket Association. This amount is expected to compensate the association for the losses they incurred due to the cancellation of the match.

The ruling is a significant victory for the Andhra Cricket Association, which had suffered financial losses due to the cancellation of the match. The decision also serves as a warning to insurance companies to honor legitimate claims and not reject them without proper justification. In this case, the insurance company’s decision to repudiate the claim was found to be wrongful, and they have been held accountable for their actions.

The National Consumer Commission’s decision is a testament to the importance of consumer protection in India. The commission’s role is to ensure that consumers are treated fairly and that companies are held accountable for their actions. In this case, the commission has taken a strong stance against an insurance company that failed to fulfill its obligations, sending a clear message that such behavior will not be tolerated. The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for the insurance industry, emphasizing the need for companies to prioritize consumer interests and honor legitimate claims.

The Indian government is considering a plan to merge three state-owned insurance companies – Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance – into a single entity. This move is aimed at achieving better efficiency and scale, as the financial health of these companies has improved. The Finance Ministry is conducting a preliminary assessment of the merger, which is in line with Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s privatisation agenda announced in the 2021-22 Budget.

The government had previously announced plans to privatise a general insurance company, and various options are being examined. The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 2021, was approved by Parliament in August 2021, allowing for the privatisation of state-owned general insurance companies. The act also dropped the requirement for the central government to hold at least 51% of the equity capital in a specified insurer.

The idea of merging the three insurance companies was first announced by former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in the 2018-19 Budget. However, the plan was dropped in July 2020, and the Union Cabinet instead approved a capital infusion of ₹12,450 crore into the three companies. Between 2019-20 and 2021-22, the government invested ₹17,450 crore in the three public sector undertakings to help them overcome financial distress.

Now that their finances have improved, the government is reconsidering the merger plan. The government is also keen to increase foreign direct investment (FDI) in the insurance sector, with a bill seeking to increase the FDI limit to 100% from the existing 74%. This move is aimed at facilitating the entry of new players from overseas and increasing insurance penetration in the country.

The Winter session of Parliament is set to begin on December 1 and will continue until December 19, with 15 working days. The government is expected to introduce several bills and amendments during this session, including the proposal to merge the three insurance companies and increase the FDI limit in the insurance sector. The government’s efforts to privatise and merge state-owned insurance companies are part of its broader agenda to improve efficiency and increase private participation in the sector.

The Indian finance ministry is reconsidering a proposal to merge three state-owned general insurance companies, namely Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance, into a single entity. This move is being considered due to the improved financial health of these companies, with the goal of achieving better efficiency and scale. Between 2019-20 and 2021-22, the government infused Rs 17,450 crore into these companies to help them recover from financial distress.

The idea of merging these companies was first announced by former finance minister Arun Jaitley in the 2018-19 Budget. However, the plan was dropped in July 2020, and instead, the Union Cabinet approved a capital infusion of Rs 12,450 crore into the three general insurance companies. Now, with their finances improved, the finance ministry is conducting a preliminary assessment of the merger proposal to enhance their efficiency.

In addition to the merger proposal, the government is also exploring the option of privatizing a general insurance company, as announced by finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman in the 2021-22 Budget. This is part of a larger privatization agenda, which includes the privatization of two public sector banks. According to sources, various options are being considered, but no decision has been made yet.

The potential merger and privatization of these state-owned general insurance companies are expected to have significant implications for the Indian insurance sector. The merger could lead to improved efficiency and scale, while privatization could attract foreign investment and increase competition in the market. However, the outcome of these proposals is still uncertain, and the government is likely to carefully consider the potential benefits and challenges before making a decision.

The United India Insurance Company Limited (UIIC) has released the official notification for the recruitment of apprentices for the 2025-26 cycle. The online registration window is open from December 18, 2025, to January 12, 2026. A total of 153 vacancies have been announced across various states and union territories. The selection process involves a merit-based screening of candidates based on their graduation marks, followed by a document verification round.

To be eligible, candidates must have completed their graduation in any discipline from a recognized university or institution. The age limit is between 21 and 28 years, with age relaxation applicable for reserved categories. Candidates who have already completed an apprenticeship or have prior job experience exceeding one year may not be eligible. The selected candidates will receive a hands-on experience in insurance operations, customer handling, documentation, and basic administrative processes.

The training duration is one year, and the selected candidates will receive a monthly stipend of ₹9,000. The vacancies are spread across 20 states and union territories, with the highest number of vacancies in Karnataka (26) and Tamil Nadu (19). The eligibility criteria, selection process, and other details can be found on the UIIC official website, www.uiic.co.in.

The important dates for the application and registration process are as follows: December 2025 (notification release), December 18, 2025 (online registration start date), and January 12, 2026 (last date to apply online). The shortlisting and verification process, as well as the training commencement date, will be notified later.

The state-wise vacancy list is as follows: Andhra Pradesh (3), Assam (1), Bihar (2), Chandigarh (2), Chhattisgarh (4), Delhi (9), Goa (2), Gujarat (8), Haryana (1), Jharkhand (1), Karnataka (26), Kerala (10), Madhya Pradesh (6), Maharashtra (23), Odisha (1), Puducherry (4), Punjab (2), Rajasthan (18), Tamil Nadu (19), Telangana (2), Uttarakhand (5), and West Bengal (4).

Overall, the UIIC Apprentice Recruitment 2025-26 provides an opportunity for candidates to gain hands-on experience in the insurance industry and receive a monthly stipend of ₹9,000. Candidates who meet the eligibility criteria and are interested in applying can do so through the UIIC official website.

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of the petitioner, Numero Uno Clothing Ltd., in a dispute with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. over the existence of an arbitration agreement in two insurance policies. The policies, issued on January 31, 2024, contained arbitration clauses, despite the existence of an IRDAI Circular dated October 27, 2023, which allegedly superseded arbitration clauses in fire insurance policies. The respondent, United India Insurance, had argued that the circular rendered the arbitration clauses in the policies ineffective, but the court rejected this argument.

The court held that by issuing policies after the circular with arbitration clauses intact, the respondent had effectively waived its right to rely on the circular to deny the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court noted that party autonomy is a core principle of arbitration law, and if the respondent intended to rely on the circular, it should not have included arbitration clauses in the policies issued after the circular.

The court also observed that the circular would apply to policies existing as on the date of the circular or on the date of being gazetted, but where a policy had been issued after the circular and still contained an arbitration clause, there was no justification for the insurer to argue that the clause stands deleted unless it plainly intended to retain arbitration.

The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to appoint its nominee arbitrator within two weeks, and the two nominee arbitrators to appoint the presiding arbitrator within a further two weeks. The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of party autonomy in arbitration and the need for insurers to clearly indicate their intention to rely on regulatory circulars when issuing policies.

The case highlights the complexities of arbitration law and the need for careful consideration of regulatory circulars and their impact on insurance policies. The court’s decision provides clarity on the issue and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. The petitioner was represented by a team of advocates, including Saurav Agarwal and Ritika Jhurani, while the respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Vishnu Mehra. The case was decided on November 20, 2025, and is reported as Numero Uno Clothing Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8704.

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of a policyholder, Reena Goel, who had filed a petition against United India Insurance Company Limited for not reimbursing her full Covid-19 hospitalization claim. The court observed that a government circular issued during the pandemic, which regulated hospital charges, cannot be used to limit the contractual obligations of insurance companies towards their policyholders. The circular, issued by the Delhi government on June 20, 2020, was intended to regulate the fees hospitals charged patients for Covid-19 treatment, but it did not reduce the reimbursement payable under insurance policies.

The court noted that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) had already clarified this position through circulars issued in January and April 2021. Goel had been admitted to a hospital between December 4 and December 18, 2020, and incurred expenses of ₹3,56,295. She was covered under a ₹3 lakh base policy and an additional ₹3 lakh “Super Top Up Medicare Policy.” However, the insurer reimbursed only ₹1,75,340, citing the Delhi government’s circular.

The court found the insurer’s reliance on the circular unjustified and directed United India Insurance to release the balance amount to Goel within four weeks. The court held that the deficit payment was contrary to IRDAI’s clarifications and the past conduct of the insurer in similar cases. The petitioner was represented by a team of advocates, while IRDAI was represented by Abhishek Nanda, Hrishika Rawat, and Sourabh Singh.

The court’s decision is a significant victory for policyholders who have been facing issues with insurance companies citing government circulars to limit their claims. The judgment emphasizes the importance of contractual obligations and the need for insurance companies to honor their commitments to policyholders. The case highlights the need for clarity and transparency in insurance policies and the importance of regulatory bodies like IRDAI in ensuring that insurance companies act in the best interests of their policyholders.

The Rajasthan Royals cricket team has been embroiled in a decade-long legal battle with United India Insurance Company over an injury claim for former player S Sreesanth. The case dates back to 2012, when Sreesanth suffered a knee injury during a practice match, causing him to miss the season. The Royals had taken out a special contingency insurance cover worth over ₹8.7 crore and filed a claim of approximately ₹82.8 lakh to recover player fees for Sreesanth’s missed season.

However, the insurer denied the claim, arguing that Sreesanth had a pre-existing toe injury from 2011 that was not disclosed at the time of the policy. The insurer contended that this omission invalidated the Royals’ claim, despite an independent surveyor initially ruling that the knee injury was a sudden and unforeseen event covered by the policy.

The Royals’ defence argued that the old toe issue never kept Sreesanth from playing, and the knee injury suffered during the insured period was the sole reason for his absence. The team’s lawyer, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, maintained that fitness certificates were provided both when Sreesanth joined the squad and after he sustained the knee injury, underscoring that the franchise had complied with its disclosure obligations.

The case has now reached the Supreme Court, with the insurer challenging a previous ruling in favour of the Royals by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The Supreme Court has asked the insurance firm to produce additional documents, including Sreesanth’s fitness certificates and the original policy application, before a final decision is made.

The outcome of this legal battle will not only decide a long-pending financial claim but could also set an important precedent for how future player insurance disputes in the Indian Premier League (IPL) are handled. The case highlights the complex intersection of professional sports, insurance law, and medical disclosure, and its resolution will be closely watched by the sports and insurance industries.

The Madras High Court has ruled that an insurance company is entitled to retrieve the compensation amount deposited in a motor accident case where the deceased was solely responsible for the accident due to negligent driving. The case involved a Toyota Qualis Car that met with an accident in 2009, resulting in the death of the driver. The driver’s wife filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs 3,93,500, which was awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, along with interest. However, the insurance company appealed to the High Court, arguing that the accident occurred solely due to the driver’s rash and negligent act.

The High Court’s Single Bench, consisting of Justice R. Poornima, observed that when a person borrows a vehicle and drives it, they step into the shoes of the owner. In this case, the deceased drove the vehicle negligently and was solely responsible for the accident, which means he cannot claim compensation from the insurance company as he does not fall within the category of a third party. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another (2020), which held that a claim petition under Section 163-A is not maintainable by the borrower/permissive user of the vehicle against the owner and/or insurer.

The court also noted that the FIR recorded the deceased as the driver responsible for the accident, and the claimant did not dispute this fact. During the trial, the claimant admitted that her husband was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court concluded that the deceased was not entitled to maintain a claim for compensation as he had borrowed the vehicle from the lawful owner and driven it negligently, resulting in the accident. Therefore, the insurance company was entitled to get back the deposited amount. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, directing the insurance company to retrieve the deposited amount. The case highlights the importance of determining liability in motor accident cases and the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

On June 30, 2025, A. Sitarama Krishna Rao, Special Judge for CBI Cases in Vijayawada, delivered a verdict in a corruption case against Kola Rama Narasimham, a Development Officer at the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’s Kandukuru Branch in Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. Narasimham was found guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹10,000 from a complainant. The bribe was allegedly demanded in exchange for forwarding an insurance claim file related to the death of the complainant’s buffalo to the Divisional Office of UII in Guntur.

The CBI Visakhapatnam Branch had laid a trap for Narasimham, catching him red-handed while he was demanding and accepting the bribe. The court convicted Narasimham under sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As a result, he was sentenced to undergo four years of simple imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of ₹2,000.

Narasimham was immediately taken into custody and sent to the District Jail in Vijayawada to serve his sentence. The conviction and sentencing of Narasimham serve as a reminder of the CBI’s efforts to combat corruption and hold public servants accountable for their actions. The case highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in public offices, and the consequences that can follow when individuals abuse their positions for personal gain.

The verdict was delivered on June 30, 2025, and Narasimham’s conviction is a significant outcome in the fight against corruption in India. The CBI’s successful investigation and the court’s decision demonstrate the commitment to upholding the law and ensuring that those in positions of power are held accountable for their actions. The case also underscores the need for vigilance and the importance of reporting corruption to the authorities. By doing so, individuals can help to prevent corruption and promote a more transparent and accountable system.

The Gujarat High Court has issued a notice to United India Insurance Company Ltd in relation to the Harni Lake boat capsizing incident that occurred on January 18, 2024. The incident resulted in the loss of 14 lives, including 12 school children and two teachers, during a school picnic. The court has directed the insurance company to explain why the compensation determined for the victims’ families should not be tied to them.

It was revealed that the contractor firm, M/s Kotia Projects, had a valid insurance policy with United India Insurance Company that covered boating activities from January 9, 2024, to January 8, 2025, which includes the date of the incident. The petitioner’s counsel submitted this information to the court, which led to the notice being issued to the insurance company.

In a related development, the court allowed an application filed by M/s Kotia Projects to implead two alleged joint-venture partners, M/s Tristar Enterprise and M/s Dolphine Enterprise, as additional respondents in the case. M/s Kotia Projects claimed that they had a tripartite agreement with the two joint-venture partners to run the project and subcontract boating activities at the lake. However, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation stated that they had never granted permission for subcontracting boating activities.

The court has directed the insurance company to show cause and has allowed the application to implead the additional respondents. The matter is scheduled to be heard on January 16, 2026. The court’s decision to issue a notice to the insurance company and allow the application to implead additional respondents suggests that they are taking a closer look at the liability and responsibility of all parties involved in the incident.

The case highlights the importance of ensuring that all parties involved in such activities have the necessary permissions and follow safety protocols to prevent such tragic incidents. The court’s actions are a step towards providing justice and compensation to the victims’ families and holding those responsible accountable for their actions. The hearing scheduled for January 16, 2026, will likely provide further clarity on the matter and determine the next course of action.

The Indian Finance Ministry is reconsidering the merger of three state-owned general insurance companies: Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance. This proposal was initially announced in the 2018-19 Budget to improve efficiency and scale by consolidating the three entities into a single insurer. However, the plan was dropped in July 2020, and instead, the government infused Rs 17,450 crore between 2019-20 and 2021-22 to revive the companies, which were facing financial distress.

With the improvement in the financial condition of these companies, a fresh preliminary assessment on consolidation is underway. The government had earlier approved a capital infusion of Rs 12,450 crore into the insurers. The sources suggest that various options are being considered, but nothing has been finalized yet.

In addition to the merger, the government is also assessing the proposal to privatize a general insurance company, which was announced in the 2021-22 Budget. The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, passed in 2021, removed the requirement for the Centre to hold at least 51% equity in a specified insurer, allowing for greater private participation to enhance insurance penetration and social protection.

To attract more global players and expand insurance access, the government plans to introduce a Bill in the upcoming Winter session of Parliament to raise the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) cap in the insurance sector to 100% from the existing 74%. The Winter session, scheduled to run from December 1 to December 19, will have 15 sittings, and the government is expected to introduce the Bill during this session.

The proposed changes aim to improve the efficiency and scalability of the insurance sector, increase private participation, and enhance insurance penetration in the country. The government’s efforts to reform the insurance sector are expected to have a significant impact on the industry and the economy as a whole. With the improvement in the financial condition of the state-owned insurance companies, the government is now in a position to consider consolidation and privatization, which could lead to increased competition and better services for policyholders.

The Indian Finance Ministry is reconsidering a proposal to merge three public sector general insurance companies: Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance. The goal of the merger is to improve operational efficiency and scale. This plan was initially announced in the 2018-19 Budget by then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley but was put on hold in July 2020 in favor of a capital infusion of ₹12,450 crore. Between 2019-20 and 2021-22, the government invested ₹17,450 crore into these companies to stabilize their finances.

Now, with signs of financial recovery, the merger plan is being reassessed. Simultaneously, the government is also reviewing a proposal to privatize a general insurance company as part of its broader divestment strategy. Although discussions are underway, no final decision has been made. The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, passed in August 2021, has paved the way for potential privatization by removing the requirement for the government to hold at least 51% stake in these entities. This amendment aims to increase private sector participation and deepen insurance penetration in the country.

Furthermore, the government is expected to introduce a bill in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament, which starts on December 1 and will last for 15 working days. This bill aims to raise the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) cap in the insurance sector from 74% to 100%. This move is expected to attract more foreign investment into the insurance sector, potentially leading to greater efficiency and competitiveness. The reconsideration of the merger and the potential for privatization and increased FDI reflect the government’s efforts to reform and strengthen the insurance sector, aligning with its broader economic and financial policies.

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.

The case of former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth’s injury and the subsequent insurance claim by his team, Rajasthan Royals, has resurfaced in the Supreme Court. The incident dates back to 2012 when Sreesanth suffered a knee injury during a practice match, which led to him being ruled out of the IPL season. The Royals had insured their players under a policy worth over Rs 8.7 crore and filed a claim of around Rs 82 lakh, citing that the injury made Sreesanth unfit to participate.

However, the insurance company, United India Insurance, rejected the claim, stating that Sreesanth had a pre-existing toe injury from 2011 that was not disclosed when the policy was taken. The insurer argued that this prior injury could have affected Sreesanth’s availability, making the Royals’ claim invalid. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission initially ruled in favor of the Royals, ordering the insurer to pay the claim. But the insurance company appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case is now being revisited.

The Royals maintain that the toe injury did not prevent Sreesanth from playing and that the knee injury was the sole reason for his absence. They submitted fitness certificates to support their claim, which were issued before and after the knee injury. The Supreme Court has asked the insurance firm to produce additional documents, including Sreesanth’s fitness certificates and the original application for the policy.

The case raises questions about the disclosure of pre-existing injuries and the validity of insurance claims. The Supreme Court’s decision will have implications for the Royals, who are still waiting for a resolution to their claim. The case also highlights the complexities of insurance policies and the need for clear disclosure of pre-existing conditions. The matter remains unresolved, with the Supreme Court seeking more information before making a decision. The decade-old dispute between the Royals and their insurer continues to linger, with no end in sight.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that insurance companies are not liable to pay compensation to the family of a driver who dies in an accident caused by their own rash and negligent driving. This decision was made in a case where a man, N S Ravisha, died in a car accident on June 18, 2014, while driving at high speed and violating traffic rules. His family, who claimed he was earning Rs 3 lakh per month as a contractor, sought Rs 80 lakh in compensation from United India Insurance Company.

However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected their petition, citing the police charge sheet that concluded the accident was caused by Ravisha’s rash and negligent driving. The Karnataka High Court upheld this decision, stating that the claimants must prove the deceased was not responsible for the accident and that they would be covered under the policy.

The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court’s view, saying that if death is caused by the deceased’s own mistake without any external factors, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. In this case, the accident occurred due to Ravisha’s rash and negligent driving, and therefore, his legal heirs cannot claim compensation for his death.

The court’s decision emphasizes that insurance companies are not responsible for paying compensation in cases where the accident is caused by the policyholder’s own reckless behavior. This ruling may have implications for similar cases in the future, where families of deceased drivers may not be able to claim compensation if the accident was caused by the driver’s own negligence.

The Supreme Court’s decision is based on the principle that insurance companies should not be held liable for accidents caused by the policyholder’s own actions. This ruling highlights the importance of responsible driving and the need for drivers to follow traffic rules and regulations to prevent accidents. The court’s decision also emphasizes that families of deceased drivers cannot claim compensation if the accident was caused by the driver’s own negligence, regardless of their income or occupation.

A consumer panel in Uttarakhand has ordered an insurance company to compensate a Dehradun man for damages to his commercial vehicle, which was involved in a crash in 2017. The insurer, United India Insurance Co Ltd (UIICL), had initially denied the claim, citing overloading as the reason. However, the state consumer commission found no evidence to support this allegation.

The vehicle, owned by Surat Dass, was insured with UIICL in July 2016. On January 21, 2017, the vehicle met with an accident on the Lakhamanda-Nada road when a retaining wall collapsed, resulting in the deaths of three passengers. Dass informed the insurer and filed a First Information Report (FIR). After submitting the necessary documents, Dass’s claim remained unresolved, prompting him to file a complaint with the district consumer commission.

The district consumer commission ruled in Dass’s favor, ordering the insurer to pay ₹64,000 for vehicle damage, ₹30,000 for mental agony and litigation costs, and 9% annual interest from the date of filing the complaint. The state consumer commission has now upheld this decision, directing UIICL to compensate Dass.

The case highlights the importance of insurance companies providing fair and timely compensation to policyholders. In this instance, the insurer’s decision to deny the claim based on an unproven allegation of overloading was deemed unjustified. The consumer panel’s ruling serves as a reminder to insurance companies to act in good faith and provide adequate compensation to policyholders in the event of a claim.

The incident occurred in 2017, but the case was recently resolved in July 2025, with the state consumer commission ordering the insurer to compensate Dass. The delay in resolving the claim and the need for Dass to file a complaint with the district consumer commission underscore the challenges faced by policyholders in seeking fair compensation from insurance companies.

A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in New Delhi has awarded a compensation of Rs 38.6 lakh to the parents of a 22-year-old national-level handball player, Amar Yadav, who tragically lost his life in a road accident in 2018. The accident occurred on December 4, 2018, when a tractor collided with Yadav’s car, resulting in his death. The tribunal held the tractor driver responsible for the accident, citing rash and negligent driving as the cause.

Presiding officer Arul Varma observed that Yadav had a promising future in sports, having won several championships, and his life was cut short due to the accident. The tribunal noted that the tractor driver failed to appear or provide any evidence to refute the allegations of reckless driving. As a result, the tribunal held the tractor owner, driver, and insurer, United India Insurance, jointly and severally liable for paying the compensation to Yadav’s parents.

The compensation amount of Rs 38.6 lakh was awarded to Yadav’s parents, who had filed a claim petition with the tribunal. The tribunal’s decision highlights the importance of responsible driving and the consequences of reckless behavior on the road. The award of compensation to the family of the deceased is a small consolation for their loss, but it acknowledges the tragic circumstances of Yadav’s death and provides some measure of justice.

The case serves as a reminder of the need for drivers to exercise caution and follow traffic rules to prevent such accidents. The tribunal’s decision also underscores the importance of insurance companies taking responsibility for compensating victims of road accidents. In this case, United India Insurance, the insurer of the tractor, has been held liable for paying the compensation, along with the tractor owner and driver. The award of Rs 38.6 lakh is a significant amount, and it is hoped that it will provide some financial support to Yadav’s family as they cope with their loss.

The Indian government is considering merging three public sector general insurance companies – Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance – into a single entity in the upcoming budget for the financial year 2026-27. The proposal aims to improve the efficiency and health of general insurance companies in India. The Union finance ministry has expedited its capital infusion plan for the forthcoming budget, and a fresh preliminary assessment on further consolidation is underway.

The government had previously announced plans to merge the three companies in the 2018-19 budget, but the idea was dropped in 2020 in favor of a capital infusion of Rs 12,450 crore. Between 2019-20 and 2021-22, the government infused Rs 17,450 crore into the three PSU general insurance companies to bring them out of financial distress. With their finances now improved, the finance ministry is reassessing the possibility of a merger.

Additionally, the government is considering privatizing a general insurance company, as announced by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in the 2021-22 budget. The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 2021, was passed in August 2021, allowing for the privatization of state-owned general insurance companies and increasing private participation.

The government is also planning to introduce a bill in the winter session of Parliament to raise foreign direct investment (FDI) in the insurance sector from 74% to 100%. This move aims to attract more global players and expand insurance access across India. The winter session of Parliament is scheduled to start on December 1 and end on December 19.

The proposed merger and privatization plans are part of the government’s efforts to strengthen and restructure the insurance sector in India. The finance ministry is working closely with the insurance regulator, Irdai, to improve the efficiency and health of general insurance companies. The government’s goal is to enhance insurance penetration and social protection, while also attracting more private investment and global players into the sector.

The Indian government is reviving its plan to merge three public sector insurance companies – Oriental Insurance Company, National Insurance Company, and United India Insurance Company – into a single entity. The move aims to improve scale, efficiency, and financial performance in the public sector general insurance space. The plan, which was first announced in the 2018-19 Budget, was put on hold in 2020 but is now back on the table due to the improved financial health of the companies.

The government has provided significant capital infusions to the three companies between 2019-20 and 2021-22, totaling around ₹17,450 crore. The merger is expected to create a larger combined entity with a stronger balance sheet and diversification of risk, as well as operational synergies and cost savings. The merged entity is likely to have a better scale to compete with private insurers and accelerate insurance penetration in India.

However, the merger also poses risks and challenges, including complex HR, IT, culture, and regulatory integration issues, legacy issues, and potential morale concerns among employees. The actual timeline and implementation of the merger may also be delayed, reducing potential benefits in the short term.

The government is also considering other structural reforms in the insurance sector, including possible privatization of one general insurance company and increasing foreign direct investment (FDI) limits. The merger is part of a broader effort to expand insurance penetration, improve profitability, and attract private and foreign capital to the sector.

The implications of the merger are significant for policyholders, investors, and the insurance ecosystem. A stronger merged entity could mean improved financial strength, better service, and more product choice for policyholders. For investors and the insurance ecosystem, the merger signals a phase of consolidation and reform in the public sector insurance domain, potentially increasing competitive pressure and spurring innovation.

The government is likely to firm up a proposal for the merger ahead of the upcoming Winter session of Parliament. The key details of the merger, including the mode of merger, timeline, and potential benefits and risks, are still under review. The market reaction to the merger, including the response from private insurance companies and the potential for further consolidation in the sector, will also be closely watched. Overall, the merger is a significant development in the Indian insurance sector, with far-reaching implications for policyholders, investors, and the industry as a whole.

The Indian government is planning to consolidate its insurance sector by merging three state-owned general insurance companies. The proposed merger involves Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance, with the goal of creating a single, more efficient entity. This move follows the government’s previous efforts to consolidate the banking sector, which aimed to improve operational efficiency and achieve greater scale.

According to sources, the Finance Ministry is currently evaluating a preliminary proposal for the merger, which is expected to enhance the financial performance of the combined entity. The decision to merge the insurance companies comes after they have shown significant improvements in their financial performance. By combining their resources and operations, the government hopes to create a more competitive and sustainable insurance company that can better serve the needs of its customers.

The merger is expected to have several benefits, including improved operational efficiency, reduced costs, and enhanced scale. A larger insurance company will be better positioned to compete with private sector insurers and provide a wider range of products and services to its customers. Additionally, the merger is likely to lead to improved risk management and reduced volatility, as the combined entity will have a more diversified portfolio and greater financial resources.

The proposed merger is still in its preliminary stages, and further evaluations and assessments will be needed before a final decision is made. However, if successful, the merger could have significant implications for the Indian insurance sector, leading to increased competition, improved services, and better outcomes for customers. The government’s efforts to consolidate the insurance sector are part of its broader strategy to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of state-owned enterprises and to promote economic growth and development.

Overall, the proposed merger of Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance is a significant development in the Indian insurance sector, with the potential to create a more efficient, competitive, and sustainable insurance company. As the proposal moves forward, it will be important to monitor its progress and assess its potential impact on the sector and its customers. With the government’s commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of state-owned enterprises, the merger is likely to have a positive impact on the Indian economy and the insurance sector as a whole.

The Indian Finance Ministry is reconsidering a proposal to merge three state-owned general insurance companies – Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance – into a single entity. The government had previously infused Rs 17,450 crore into these companies between 2019-20 and 2021-22 to improve their financial health. The idea of merging the companies was first announced in the 2018-19 Budget by then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, but was dropped in 2020 in favor of a capital infusion of Rs 12,450 crore.

However, with the companies’ finances now improved, the ministry is reassessing the merger proposal to achieve better efficiency and scale. Additionally, the government is also exploring the possibility of privatizing one of the general insurance companies, as announced by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in the 2021-22 Budget. The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 2021, which allows for the privatization of state-owned general insurance companies, was approved by Parliament in August 2021.

The amended legislation removes the requirement for the central government to hold at least 51% of the equity capital in a specified insurer, paving the way for greater private participation in public sector insurance companies. The government is also planning to increase the foreign direct investment (FDI) limit in the insurance sector from 74% to 100% to facilitate the entry of new players from overseas and increase insurance penetration.

The proposal to merge the three general insurance companies and the plan to privatize one of them are part of the government’s efforts to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the insurance sector. The government has lined up a bill to increase the FDI limit in the insurance sector, which is expected to be introduced in the upcoming Winter session of Parliament, scheduled to begin on December 1. The session will have 15 working days, and the government is expected to push through several key legislative proposals, including the insurance sector reform bill.

The Indian Finance Ministry is reconsidering a proposal to merge three state-owned general insurance companies – Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance – into a single entity. The proposal was initially announced in the 2018-19 budget by then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, but was later dropped in 2020 in favor of a capital infusion of Rs 12,450 crore to improve their financial health. However, with the companies’ finances now improved, the ministry is reassessing the merger proposal to achieve better efficiency and scale.

The government had infused a total of Rs 17,450 crore into the three companies between 2019-20 and 2021-22 to bring them out of financial distress. The improved financial health of the companies has prompted the ministry to consider the merger proposal once again. The proposal is still in the preliminary stages, and various options are being examined.

In addition to the merger proposal, the government is also considering the privatization of a general insurance company, as announced by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in the 2021-22 budget. The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 2021, which allows for the privatization of state-owned general insurance companies, was approved by Parliament in August 2021. The amended legislation removes the requirement for the central government to hold at least 51% of the equity capital in a specified insurer, paving the way for greater private participation in public sector insurance companies.

The government is also planning to increase the foreign direct investment (FDI) limit in the insurance sector from 74% to 100% to facilitate the entry of new players from overseas and increase insurance penetration. A bill to this effect is expected to be introduced in the upcoming Winter session of Parliament, which is scheduled to begin on December 1 and continue till December 19. The session will have 15 working days, and the government is expected to push through several key legislative proposals, including the insurance sector reforms.

The Indian Finance Ministry is considering a merger proposal for three state-owned general insurance companies: Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance. This move comes after the companies showed signs of financial recovery, following a capital infusion of ₹17,450 crore by the government between 2019-20 and 2021-22. The merger aims to improve efficiency and scale in the sector.

The proposal was first announced by former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in the 2018-19 Budget, but was put on hold in 2020 in favor of a capital infusion. However, with the companies’ financial health improving, the Finance Ministry is revisiting the merger plan as part of a broader strategy to enhance efficiency in public sector insurance firms.

In addition to the merger, the Finance Ministry is also considering a proposal to privatize one of the general insurance companies. This move is part of a larger privatization agenda announced by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman during her 2021-22 Budget speech. The General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Amendment Act, 2021, which allows for the privatization of state-owned general insurance companies, was passed by Parliament in August 2021.

Furthermore, the government is pushing a bill to raise the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) limit in the insurance sector, aimed at facilitating the entry of new foreign players into the market and boosting insurance penetration and social protection. The bill is expected to be introduced during the Winter session of Parliament, scheduled from December 1-19.

The proposed merger and privatization are intended to strengthen the Indian insurance sector, which has faced challenges in recent years. The government’s efforts to improve efficiency and attract foreign investment are expected to have a positive impact on the sector, enabling it to better serve the needs of Indian citizens and contribute to the country’s economic growth. Overall, the proposed changes are part of a broader effort to reform and strengthen the Indian insurance sector, and are expected to have significant implications for the industry and its stakeholders.

A court-ordered attachment of the Jaisalmer branch of United India Insurance Company Limited was carried out on Wednesday. The attachment was a result of the company’s failure to pay a motor accident claim within the stipulated period. The claim pertained to a road accident that occurred in 2022, involving an Innova car traveling from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer. The car’s occupants, Jitendra Bissa, his wife Shweta Bissa, and their child Mayuri Vyas, sustained serious injuries in the accident.

The victims had filed an insurance claim on December 19, 2022, with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal in Jaisalmer. However, despite the tribunal’s order on March 10, 2023, directing the insurance company to pay approximately Rs 19 lakh with 6% interest within two months, the company failed to comply. The tribunal, headed by Judge Chandra Prakash Singh, found the insurance company guilty and issued an attachment warrant on October 16.

Consequently, the sub-divisional officer, acting on orders from the district collector, attached the Jaisalmer branch of United India Insurance Company Limited. The attachment included the branch’s building and its contents, such as furniture, computers, printers, and stationery. An attachment notice was also pasted on the premises. The action was taken as a result of the company’s failure to pay the claim amount, which had been ordered by the tribunal.

The attachment of the insurance company’s branch is a significant development, as it highlights the consequences of non-compliance with court orders. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of insurance companies fulfilling their obligations towards policyholders and claimants. The victims, who had suffered serious injuries in the accident, had been waiting for compensation for over a year, and the attachment of the insurance company’s branch is a step towards ensuring that they receive the justice they deserve.

The Supreme Court of India has put a hold on an order from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that directed an insurance company to pay Rs 82.80 lakh to a company that contracted players for the Indian Premier League (IPL) team Rajasthan Royals. The order stems from a case involving S Sreesanth, a cricketer who suffered a knee injury in 2012 during a practice match, rendering him unfit to play in the IPL that year.

The company, Royal Multisport Pvt Ltd, had obtained a special contingency insurance policy for player loss of fees cover, which would pay out in the event of a player’s non-appearance due to injury or other circumstances covered under the policy. When Sreesanth was injured, the company filed a claim with the insurance firm, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, for Rs 82.80 lakh. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim, citing a pre-existing toe injury that Sreesanth had, which was not disclosed to them.

The NCDRC ruled in favor of Royal Multisport Pvt Ltd, directing the insurance company to pay the claimed amount. However, the insurance company appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which has now stayed the order until further notice. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, observed that Sreesanth did not play for a single day in the 2012 IPL season and has put the order on hold, effectively suspending the insurance company’s obligation to pay the claimed amount until the matter is further heard.

This case highlights the complexities of insurance claims, particularly in the context of sports and player injuries. The outcome of this case will have implications for the insurance industry and sports teams, as it pertains to the interpretation of policy terms and the disclosure of pre-existing conditions. The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the order suggests that the case is not straightforward and requires further consideration. The final outcome will depend on the court’s interpretation of the policy terms, the extent of Sreesanth’s injury, and the disclosure of his pre-existing condition.

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.

Energy and marine consultancy ABL has secured a contract with India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) to oversee the company’s rig moves between September 2025 and May 2026. The contract, awarded through United India Insurance (UIIC), positions ABL as the marine warranty surveyor for an anticipated 25 ONGC rig moves. Additionally, ABL will serve as tow master and marine warranty surveyor for approximately 70 moves on third-party jackup units within ONGC’s fields off the west coast of India during the same period.

The scope of the contract encompasses ONGC’s entire fleet of jackups and mobile offshore drilling units operating in Indian waters. Notably, the agreement includes plans for around 34 rig moves to new locations ahead of the Indian monsoon season, which typically runs from March to June. This proactive approach aims to ensure the safe and efficient relocation of rigs before the onset of adverse weather conditions.

ABL’s appointment underscores the company’s expertise and reputation in the field of marine consultancy and rig moving operations. In 2024, ABL supported over 1,500 rig moves globally, demonstrating its extensive experience and capabilities in roles such as marine warranty surveyor, tow master, and client representative. By leveraging its expertise, ABL will play a crucial role in ensuring the successful execution of ONGC’s rig moves, contributing to the safe and efficient operation of India’s offshore oil and gas assets.

The contract highlights the growing demand for specialized marine consultancy services in the energy sector, particularly in regions like India where offshore oil and gas operations are expanding. ABL’s involvement in ONGC’s rig moving operations is expected to enhance the safety, efficiency, and environmental compliance of these activities, ultimately supporting the growth of India’s energy industry. With its proven track record and expertise, ABL is well-positioned to deliver high-quality services and support the successful execution of ONGC’s rig moves.

ABL has been appointed by United India Insurance to oversee the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation’s (ONGC) rig moves in India. The contract, which runs from September 2025 to May 2026, involves ABL acting as a marine warranty surveyor for 25 anticipated ONGC rig moves. Additionally, ABL will be involved in 70 moves onboard third-party Jack-up units within ONGC’s fields off the west coast of India. This includes 34 rig moves to new locations ahead of the Indian monsoon season from March to June.

The contract covers ONGC’s entire fleet of jack-ups and mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) in Indian waters. ABL’s director for rig operations, Captain Stephen Craig, stated that the company has a long history of supporting ONGC in de-risking and delivering their rig moving operations. ABL combines a multi-disciplined in-house team with decades of practical experience in rig moving, giving them a unique perspective on the environmental and technical challenges involved.

In 2024, ABL supported over 1,500 rig moves globally in various capacities, including marine warranty surveyor, tow master, client representative, and engineering consultancy. This experience and expertise will be leveraged to ensure the successful execution of the ONGC rig moves. The appointment of ABL demonstrates the company’s capabilities and reputation in the industry, and they are well-positioned to support ONGC’s operations in India.

The contract period is significant, as it coincides with the Indian monsoon season, which can pose challenges to rig moving operations. ABL’s involvement will help to mitigate these risks and ensure the safe and efficient relocation of ONGC’s rigs. The company’s expertise in marine warranty surveying, tow mastering, and engineering consultancy will be crucial in navigating the technical and environmental challenges associated with rig moving in Indian waters.

Overall, the appointment of ABL to oversee ONGC’s rig moves is a significant development in the oil and gas industry in India. With their expertise and experience, ABL is well-equipped to support ONGC’s operations and ensure the successful execution of the rig moves. The contract highlights the importance of specialized services in the oil and gas industry and demonstrates the value that companies like ABL can bring to complex operations like rig moving.

The Supreme Court of India has made a significant ruling regarding motor accident compensation, stating that insurance companies are not liable to pay compensation if a driver’s death results from their own negligence or reckless driving. The court emphasized that if an accident occurs due to the driver’s own fault, such as overspeeding or violating traffic rules, the insurer cannot be compelled to compensate the deceased’s family.

The judgment was delivered in the case of N.S. Ravish, who died in a road accident on June 18, 2014, while driving his car at high speed and in a negligent manner. The accident resulted in the car overturning, and Ravish sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The family filed a claim seeking ₹80 lakh as compensation from United India Insurance Company, but the police charge sheet stated that the accident was caused due to Ravish’s own rash and negligent driving.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court both rejected the family’s claim, stating that compensation under a motor insurance policy is not payable when the accident occurs solely due to the insured person’s fault. The High Court noted that the claimants must prove that the accident was not due to the deceased’s negligence and that it falls within the scope of the policy coverage.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings, ruling that the insurance company is not obligated to pay compensation if the accident is entirely attributable to the deceased driver’s own fault, and there is no external factor involved. The court observed that if the death is solely due to the fault of the deceased driver and not caused by any external agency or third-party involvement, the insurer is not bound to pay compensation.

This ruling has significant implications for insurance companies and policyholders, as it clarifies the circumstances under which compensation can be claimed. The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of responsible driving and adherence to traffic rules, as accidents caused by a driver’s own negligence or recklessness will not be covered by insurance policies. The ruling also highlights the need for policyholders to carefully review their insurance policies and understand the terms and conditions of coverage.

The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award in favor of M/S Valley Iron & Steel Company Limited (Insured) against United India Insurance Company Limited (Insurer). The court dismissed the insurer’s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which challenged the arbitral award directing the insurer to pay Rs. 33.26 crore to the insured. The court held that a discharge voucher or consent letter signed under economic duress does not bar arbitration.

The case concerned a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by the insurer to the insured, which covered its factory, machine, and building. After heavy floods caused substantial damage to the insured’s machinery and plant, the insured appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor initially calculated the claim at Rs. 58.10 crore, but ultimately reduced the assessment to Rs. 10.45 crore. The insured signed a consent letter accepting the reduced amount as a full and final settlement.

However, the insured later alleged that the consent letter was obtained under economic duress and invoked an arbitration clause. The arbitral award directed the insurer to pay Rs. 33.26 crore to the insured, along with 9% interest. The insurer challenged the award, arguing that the consent letter constituted an accord and satisfaction, and that the insured’s protest letters were forged.

The court rejected the insurer’s contentions, holding that the execution of a consent letter does not bar arbitration if it was obtained under coercion. The court also held that surveyor reports are not conclusive and can be departed from. The court criticized the insurer’s approach of obtaining a discharge voucher prematurely and held that it was a violation of good faith to attempt to misuse the opportunity to pay less than it owes by demanding and enforcing a release when a mishap has happened.

The court also applied the doctrine of collateral lies, which holds that even if certain statements are false, they do not affect the merits of a genuine claim. The court endorsed this distinction and held that fraudulent claims vitiate indemnity, but collateral lies do not affect the indemnity if the core claim is valid. Ultimately, the court upheld the arbitral award, stating that it was well-reasoned and did not suffer from any perversity or patent illegality.

The Supreme Court of India has stayed an order issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that directed United India Insurance to pay ₹82.8 lakh to Royal Multisport Pvt Ltd, the parent company of the Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Rajasthan Royals. The order was related to a claim arising from cricketer S. Sreesanth’s knee injury during the 2012 IPL season.

In 2012, Royal Multisport Pvt Ltd had contracted several players, including Sreesanth, for the IPL season and obtained a special contingency insurance policy from United India Insurance worth ₹8.70 crore. The policy was designed to cover losses arising from player non-participation due to injuries. On March 28, 2012, Sreesanth suffered a knee injury during a practice session, which was later confirmed by medical tests to have rendered him unfit for the entire season.

The franchise filed a claim of ₹82.8 lakh with the insurer in September 2012, submitting medical documentation. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim, citing alleged non-disclosure of a pre-existing toe injury suffered by Sreesanth. The NCDRC ruled in favor of Royal Multisport Pvt Ltd, terming the insurer’s rejection “unsustainable” and constituting a deficiency in service.

The Commission observed that when the fact of a knee injury is established through evidence, repudiation based on a pre-existing toe injury cannot stand. Accordingly, it directed United India Insurance to pay ₹82.8 lakh to the franchise for wrongful repudiation. Challenging the NCDRC’s decision, United India Insurance approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the Commission had erred in its interpretation of policy terms and medical evidence.

The apex court has now stayed the operation of the NCDRC order, pending further examination of the case’s merits. With this interim relief, the payment obligation of ₹82.8 lakh is on hold until the Court concludes its review. The case has been posted for further hearing, and the Supreme Court will examine the merits of the case before making a final decision. The stay order indicates that the Court is willing to re-examine the NCDRC’s decision and consider the arguments presented by United India Insurance.

The Supreme Court has stayed an order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that directed United India Insurance Company to pay over Rs. 82 lakhs to the owner of the Indian Premier League (IPL) team, Rajasthan Royals. The payment was in relation to an injury sustained by cricketer S. Sreesanth during the 2012 IPL tournament. The insurance company had challenged the NCDRC order in the Supreme Court.

The case dates back to 2012 when Rajasthan Royals had obtained a “Special Contingency Insurance for Player Loss of Fees Cover” from United India Insurance Company for a total sum of Rs. 8.70 crores. The policy covered the team for any loss of monies paid to contracted players due to their non-appearance in the tournament, subject to certain conditions. Sreesanth, one of the insured players, suffered a knee injury during a practice match on March 28, 2012, and was found unfit to play in the tournament.

Rajasthan Royals filed a claim for Rs. 82.80 lakhs, which was initially approved by a surveyor appointed by the insurance company. However, the claim was later repudiated by the insurer on the ground that Sreesanth had a pre-existing toe injury that was not disclosed by the team. The team approached the NCDRC, which ruled in their favor and directed the insurance company to pay the insured sum.

In the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing Rajasthan Royals, argued that the pre-existing toe injury did not render Sreesanth incapable of playing, and it was the knee injury sustained during the insurance period that made him unfit. He also pointed out that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had taken another insurance policy for the same loss of fee, which was paid.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, admitted the matter and stayed the operation of the NCDRC order. The court observed that Sreesanth did not play for a single day in the 2012 IPL tournament. The case will now be heard further by the Supreme Court, which will decide on the validity of the NCDRC order and the insurance company’s liability to pay the claim.

The Madras High Court has overturned the Chennai Metro Rail Limited’s (CMRL) decision to acquire a portion of land belonging to United India Insurance Company for the construction of the Thousand Lights Metro Station. The court ruled that the decision to alter the station’s location, which was originally planned within the premises of a nearby temple, was taken without consulting the insurance company and violated the principles of promissory estoppel and natural justice.

The CMRL had issued a notice to the insurance company to acquire 837 square meters of its land, but the company was not given an opportunity to be heard, despite having invested over Rs 250 crore in constructing its head office on the premises. The court held that the land acquisition notice was a mere formality to justify a premeditated decision and that the petitioner’s legitimate expectations were violated.

The court also emphasized that the principle of promissory estoppel binds government agencies to their commitments and prevents them from arbitrarily rescinding assurances given to private entities. The court rejected the contention that temple lands should be automatically exempt from acquisition, citing a Supreme Court ruling that affirms the state’s power of eminent domain over religious properties.

The court noted procedural irregularities, including a joint site inspection by the first bench without notice to the petitioner, which was described as a violation of natural justice and an “abuse of power” under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also dismissed claims that temple sentiments should override public interest, underscoring that infrastructure projects serve a broader societal purpose.

Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned notice and directed the CMRL to revert to its original plan of constructing the station within the temple premises, provided legal requirements are met. The court refrained from imposing costs but expressed hope that the authorities would take away a broader lesson on fairness and transparency in public decision-making. The case highlights the importance of respecting the principles of promissory estoppel and natural justice in public decision-making and the need for transparency and fairness in the acquisition of land for infrastructure projects.

The Supreme Court of India has stayed an order directing United India Insurance Company to compensate Royal Multisport Private Limited, the owner of the Indian Premier League (IPL) team Rajasthan Royals, with Rs.82 lakh. The dispute arose from a claim made by the team due to the injury of Indian cricketer S. Sreesanth during the 2012 IPL season. The team had obtained a “Special Contingency Insurance for Player Loss of Fees Cover” from the insurer, which covered financial losses incurred due to a player’s non-participation in the tournament.

The insurer repudiated the claim, stating that Sreesanth’s injury was pre-existing and that the team had failed to disclose this material fact at the time of policy inception. The team approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which ruled in their favor, directing the insurer to pay the claimed sum. The insurer challenged the NCDRC’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the commission had erred in law and facts by disregarding the material aspect of non-disclosure of prior medical conditions.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, heard arguments from both sides and eventually admitted the matter while staying the impugned order of the consumer commission. The court observed that the matter involved nuanced questions about contractual obligations of disclosure and the distinction between a “pre-existing condition” and a “new injury.” The resolution of the case will likely hinge on the medical evidence distinguishing between Sreesanth’s prior toe injury and his knee injury during the policy period.

The case has wider implications beyond the immediate dispute, underscoring the judiciary’s cautious approach in matters involving specialized insurance contracts, particularly those related to sports and performance-based risk coverage. The judgment will likely set a precedent on how “pre-existing injuries” are to be interpreted under such policies and the extent of disclosure expected from policyholders who insure professional athletes.

The litigation highlights the increasing legal complexities that arise when sports franchises engage in sophisticated commercial arrangements involving insurance, sponsorships, and player contracts. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming adjudication will likely clarify whether a minor prior injury, unrelated to the cause of the insured loss, can justifiably be treated as a ground for repudiation. The outcome may have far-reaching implications for both the insurance industry and professional sports franchises that rely on specialized policies to safeguard their financial interests against player-related contingencies.

In a historic display of corporate philanthropy, India’s most influential business leaders have come together to fund a ₹50 crore group health insurance scheme for members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). The scheme, unveiled during the 75th anniversary celebrations of the Supreme Court of India, is the first of its kind to be directly funded by India Inc. The initiative saw prominent industrialists and conglomerates, including the Vedanta Group, Anil Ambani, Gautam Adani, Kumar Mangalam Birla, Lakshmi Mittal, the Dhirubhai Ambani family, and the Torrent Group, contribute between ₹5 crore and ₹10 crore.

According to SCBA President and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, the scheme is a “lifeline” for young lawyers who often come to the court with dreams but no safety net. The comprehensive health plan, administered by United India Insurance, offers ₹2 lakh annual coverage per family, includes parents and in-laws of the insured lawyer, and covers pre-existing conditions from Day 1. It also provides cashless treatment access in over 15,000 hospitals nationwide, ₹50,000 maternity benefit for both normal and caesarean deliveries, and coverage for congenital conditions, LASIK, and ambulance services.

Sibal personally reached out to each of the business leaders to secure their contributions, with the Ambani family donating ₹10 crore and the others contributing ₹5 crore each. The scheme is now fully available to thousands of SCBA members free of cost. In addition to the insurance launch, the SCBA released a scholarly volume, Pillars of Justice, featuring critical essays on landmark judgments. The book aims to nurture young legal minds and includes contributions from noted legal thinkers.

The dual announcement marks a significant convergence of legal, corporate, and intellectual commitment to strengthening India’s judicial ecosystem and supporting the community that sustains it. The initiative demonstrates the power of collaboration between business leaders and the legal community to create a positive impact on the lives of lawyers and their families. As Sibal emphasized, the scheme and the academic anthology are designed to support the growth and development of young legal minds, ensuring that legal thinking evolves and is not just followed blindly.

A significant insurance fraud case has concluded in Ahmedabad, resulting in the sentencing of three individuals to five years in jail. The accused include Kikubhai Dhodi, a former employee of United India Insurance’s Silvassa branch, and two others, Vasantbhai Patel and Apoorva Patel. The case was heard in a special CBI court, which found the trio guilty of hatching a criminal conspiracy to commit insurance fraud. This conspiracy ultimately led to a substantial financial loss for the insurance company.

The court’s ruling not only included prison time but also imposed a considerable fine of Rs 3.53 million on the three accused. This outcome underscores the seriousness with which Indian legal authorities view insurance fraud, recognizing the significant financial and operational impacts such crimes can have on insurance companies and, by extension, their policyholders.

The sentencing serves as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in similar fraudulent activities. It highlights the importance of integrity within the insurance sector and the consequences of violating the trust placed in insurance professionals. For companies like United India Insurance, the case demonstrates the necessity of robust internal controls and vigilant monitoring to prevent and detect fraud.

The involvement of a former employee in the fraud scheme also points to the need for thorough background checks and ongoing employee screening. It emphasizes that insurance companies must be proactive in safeguarding their operations against both external threats and internal vulnerabilities.

In conclusion, the sentencing of Kikubhai Dhodi, Vasantbhai Patel, and Apoorva Patel to five years in jail for their roles in an insurance fraud scheme marks a significant legal outcome. It reflects the commitment of Indian judicial and law enforcement bodies to combating financial crimes and protecting the interests of businesses and consumers alike. As the insurance sector continues to evolve, cases like these will play a crucial role in shaping policies and practices aimed at preventing fraud and ensuring the stability of the insurance market.

The Supreme Court of India has upheld a Karnataka High Court decision that held the legal heirs of a person who died due to their own rash and negligent driving are not entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The case, G Nagarathna & Ors. vs. G Manjunatha & Anr., involved a tragic incident where N.S. Ravisha died after losing control of a car he was driving at excessive speed. His family filed a claim for ₹80 lakh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) rejected the claim, citing that Ravisha was the tortfeasor and had caused the accident through his own negligence.

The family appealed to the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s decision, citing settled Supreme Court precedent that precludes a tortfeasor or their legal representatives from recovering compensation for injury or death resulting from their own negligence. The Supreme Court relied on key precedents, including Ningamma & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Nayan, to dismiss the appeal and uphold the High Court’s decision.

The Court emphasized that tort law treats a borrower as an owner because by taking control and possession of the vehicle, the borrower assumes the same responsibilities and risks as the owner, including the duty to drive safely. Awarding compensation in such circumstances would be contrary to the fundamental principle that no person should derive benefit from their own wrong. The ruling does not affect claims by third parties injured due to the deceased’s negligence, as the insurer would still be liable for valid third-party claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The implications of this ruling are significant, as it reiterates that a tortfeasor or their legal heirs cannot claim damages for losses directly attributable to their own negligence. For claimants, it underscores the necessity of proving that the deceased was not responsible for the accident. For insurers, it provides a strong defense against claims where the insured’s own wrongful conduct caused the fatality, ensuring that insurance does not become a backdoor means to profit from reckless driving.

From a policy perspective, the judgment aligns statutory law with fundamental tort principles and safeguards public interest by discouraging reckless driving and misuse of the compensation framework. It ensures the compensation mechanism does not become an unintended incentive for unlawful behavior on the roads. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP in G Nagarathna & Ors. vs. G Manjunatha & Anr. is a timely reminder that the principle “no man shall profit from his own wrong” is an enforceable legal doctrine, promoting responsible driving and safeguarding the integrity of the insurance system.

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.