On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court deferred a hearing involving United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’s challenge to a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directive to pay over Rs. 82 lakhs to Royal Multisport Pvt. Ltd., the Rajasthan Royals owner, for cricketer S. Sreesanth’s knee injury during the 2012 IPL season that prevented him from playing. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta postponed the case to allow the insurer to submit additional documents, including the insurance application and Sreesanth’s fitness certificate.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the insurer, argued that the NCDRC order erred by focusing on the lack of a link between Sreesanth’s pre-existing toe injury and the knee injury sustained during the insurance period, while the insurer’s rejection was based on the non-disclosure of the toe injury. Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for Royal Multisport, countered that the toe injury did not impair Sreesanth’s ability to play, stating: “The toe injury did not stop him from playing. He was playing! It was during the practice session that he had a knee injury!” Kaul emphasized that a fitness certificate was provided when Sreesanth joined, followed by another post-injury, and the policy aimed to cover losses from injuries during the tournament.
The bench questioned whether the initial certificate disclosed the toe injury, as required by clause (e) of the policy, noting: “whether that certificate has disclosure about the toe injury? That is required by clause (e).” They added that disclosure might have led to a higher premium or non-insurance. The case involves a ‘Special Contingency Insurance for Player Loss of Fees Cover’ worth Rs. 8,70,75,000, effective from March 28, 2012, covering losses from players’ non-appearance due to injuries during the period. Sreesanth’s knee injury occurred on the same day during a practice match, leading to a claim of Rs. 82,80,000 filed on September 17, 2012. The insurer’s surveyor deemed the injury a “sudden unforeseen and unexpected event” within the policy’s scope.
The insurer rejected the claim, citing an undisclosed toe injury, stating: “Undeniably, the player was suffering from a career threatening toe injury in both legs and was out of action since August 2011… the unavailability of the player is not attributable entirely to an insured peril, but greatly due to the excluded cause of pre existing injury.” The NCDRC, however, ruled: “When the fact of a knee injury is established through evidence such as X-Rays, MRI reports and expert opinion of doctors, the repudiation on the basis of a pre-existing toe injury, that has not been established to have occurred/recurred during the period of insurance cover, makes the repudiation a deficiency in service.” The insurer appealed to the Supreme Court.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Royal Multisport Private Limited | Diary No. 33872-2025
Lawcutor 