| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 667 2020 SLD 667 2020 SCMR 463 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1631-L of 2018, decision Dated: 20-03-2019, hearing Dated: 19-03-2019 (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 14.5.2018 passed in R.F.A. No. 605 of 2014)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ibrar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz A. Shaukat, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: Liaqat Ali Butt, Advocate Supreme Court
Civil Petition No. 1631-L of 2018, decision Dated: 20-03-2019, hearing Dated: 19-03-2019 (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 14.5.2018 passed in R.F.A. No. 605 of 2014)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ibrar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz A. Shaukat, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: Liaqat Ali Butt, Advocate Supreme Court
STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHERS
VS
MUZAFAR ALI
Law: Insurance Ordinance, 2000
Section: 115
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 133
Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000)--- ----S. 115---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 133---Accidental Death and Indemnity Benefit Policy ('AIB Policy')---Injury and permanent disability---Proof---Statement made by policy holder during examination-in-chief regarding his accident and permanent disability not cross-examined---Effect---Statement of policy holder stood admitted. Evidence available on the record established that respondent-policy holder was suffering from traumatic paraplegia and was permanently disabled for life. This could be inferred from his statement, when he appeared before the (Insurance) Tribunal. Respondent was not, cross-examined on the material fact that he had met with an accident and was disabled and now confined to wheelchair for life. In absence of any cross-examination on this material fact, the statement made by respondent in his examination- in-chief stood admitted. Further, State Life Insurance Corporation ('the Corporation') itself carried out a test in the year 2008, declaring respondent to be disabled for life. More importantly, relying on the evidence filed along with the claim of respondent, the Corporation allowed sickness benefit to the respondent. So, while relying on the same evidence, the respondent had been allowed sickness benefit, whereas for the purpose of granting annuity to him under the Accidental Death and Indemnity Benefit Policy ('AIB Policy'), the same evidence had been rejected. Courts below had rightly held that respondent was entitled to annuity under the AIB Policy. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE:---.--- The respondent held a life insurance policy ("Policy") in the sum of Rs.500,000/-, issued by the State Life Insurance Corporation (petitioner), dated 01.2.2004, and along with said policy, the respondent through a supplementary contract also held the Accidental Death and Indemnity Benefit Policy ("AIB Policy") for an additional premium. Admittedly, during the currency of the said policies, respondent met with a road accident in United Kingdom on 13.1.2006 and subsequently filed a claim under the AIB Policy. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the claim of the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492