Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS Respondent: Mst. Begum RASHIDA JAMILHonorable Justice Umar Ata BandialIbrar Ahmed,Liaqat Ali Butt
2020 C L D 1381 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Umar Ata Bandial and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ Messrs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and others---Petitioners Versus Mst. Begum RASHIDA JAMIL---Respondent Civil Petition No. 237-L of 2014, decided on 3rd August, 2020. (Against the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.F.A. No. 1024 of 2012) (a) Insurance Rules, 2002--- ----R. 12---Statement and declaration required of insurance agents---Primary school teacher/insurance agent---Declaration given by insurance agent at time of his re-appointment in the year 2002, that "I am not working for any other insurer and in future also I will not work for any other insurer while associated with the Corporation without written permission of the Corporation"---Whether such declaration covered employment of agent as school teacher---Held, that it was clear that the said declaration given by the deceased-agent at the time of his re-appointment in 2002 did not include any undertaking with reference to his employment with any other private or government entity---In fact, the deceased was a primary school teacher with the Education department of the Provincial Government--- Such employment was not covered by the declaration given by him at the time of his re-appointment---Consequently, the denial of his insurance benefits by the State Life Insurance Corporation on the basis of his previous declaration in 1997 (before re-appointment) was unfair and unlawful---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000)--- ----S. 115--- Employee of State Life Insurance Corporation ('the Corporation')---Group insurance, self-subscribed compulsory insurance and field self-subscribed group insurance--- Section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000--- Whether applicable---Perusal of provisions of S. 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 made it clear that the jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal had nexus with the date of issuance of a policy of insurance by the insurer after the commencement of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000---In the present case, three types of insurance schemes were availed by the deceased, i.e. group insurance, self-subscribed compulsory insurance and field self-subscribed group insurance, which were meant for employees and not for policy holders who secured the issuance of life insurance policies from the Corporation---Said schemes were connected with the day to day employment of the deceased and other employees of the Corporation---No policy was issued to the employees in respect of any of said insurance covers provided to employees---Consequently, S. 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 had no application to the present case---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Ibrar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Liaqat Ali Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd August, 2020. ORDER UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---It is common ground that the respondent's deceased husband (the deceased) was issued a fresh appointment letter after the promulgation of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 and Insurance Rules, 2002. The relevant declaration made in the respondent's application by the deceased for his re-appointment in 2002 is recorded as follows: iv) I am not working for any other insurer and in future also I will not work for any other insurer while associated with the Corporation without written permission of the Corporation." This declaration is materially different from the declaration at the time of the initial appointment of the deceased in the year 1997 as Sales Officer of the appellant insurance company. The material portion of that declaration is reproduced below: "I also hereby declare that I am a full time bona fide worker of State Life and not doing any other Service, Government/Private or any business." It is clear from the above that the declaration given by the deceased at the time of his re-appointment in 2002 does not include any undertaking with reference to his employment with any other private or government entity. In fact, the deceased was a primary School Teacher in a Masjad Maktab School with the Education department of the Provincial Government. That employment to our mind is not covered by the declaration given by him at the time of his re-appointment. Consequently, the denial of his insurance benefits by the appellant on the basis of his previous declaration is unfair and unlawful. 2. The second submission by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim filed by the respondent widow of the deceased is not maintainable under section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. This contention also has no force. It is clear from the provisions of the said section that the jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal has nexus with the date of issuance of a policy of insurance by the insurer after the commencement of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. In the present case, three types of insurance schemes were availed by the deceased. These are meant for employees and not for policy holders who secure the issuance of life insurance policies from the corporation. These three types of insurance schemes are connected with the day to day employment of the deceased and other employees of the appellant. These are group insurance, self subscribed compulsory insurance and field self-subscribed group insurance. No policy is issued to the employees in respect of any of these insurance covers provided to employees. Consequently, section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance has no application to the present case. The objection of jurisdiction is without merit. The instant Civil Petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.- MWA/S-35/SC Petition dismissed.