In September 2025 the Kerala High Court held that an insurer's arbitrary repudiation of a medical claim is not merely a contractual wrong but a violation of the right to life under Article 21 — and that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 lies against the insurer. A digest of the facts, the holding on writ maintainability and the nexus requirement, and what the case means for insureds.
The NCDRC set aside Oriental Insurance's repudiation of a film distributor's loss-of-revenue claim as arbitrary, a deficiency in service, awarding ₹3.80 crore.
The NCDRC held National Insurance liable: repudiating a fidelity-guarantee claim four years after filing is itself a deficiency in service, whatever the merits.
On 10 July 2009, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court — Justice D.K. Jain authoring, with Justice R.M. Lodha on the panel — imported the English 'prudent insurer' test of materiality into Indian mediclaim jurisprudence and crystallised the insured's positive duty of disclosure at the proposal stage. The judgment held that a mediclaim policy is a contract of uberrimae fidei, that the insured is bound to disclose health conditions material to the risk regardless of whether the proposal form asks the specific question, and that consumer forums cannot override the uberrimae fidei architecture to reach equity outcomes.