The Supreme Court recently said lawyers have a duty to bring to the Court’s notice judgments that support their case as well as those that go against them, warning that inconsistent judicial opinions create uncertainty in the legal system [The New India Insurance Company Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr.].
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi made the observation while deciding whether compensation received under a Mediclaim policy can be deducted from compensation awarded by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).
The Court noted that High Courts across the country, including benches of the same High Court, had taken contradictory positions on the issue. Referring to the role of lawyers and judges in maintaining consistency in the law, the Court said,
“It is this duty towards the Court which requires them (lawyers) to bring to the Court’s notice judgments both that aid their case and also those that do not.”
The Bench said this obligation was particularly important because courts today are “polyvocal”, with multiple benches pronouncing judgments daily across different branches of law.
At the same time, the Court said the responsibility could not rest on lawyers alone.
“The Court itself has an independent tri-fold duty, to apply correct law even if the counsel does not cite the same, ensure consistency with precedent, and avoid per incuriam decisions,” the Bench observed.
The Court, however, acknowledged the practical realities faced by judges hearing large numbers of cases every day.
“While this duty is one part of reality, a Court hearing nearly a hundred matters a day and in some cases across a variety of laws and jurisdictions, having to dictate daily orders, write judgments, and so much more, is the other part.”
The Court added that both the Bar and the Bench are “constituents of the justice delivery system” and must act in a manner that promotes consistency and reduces pendency.
The observations came in a judgment dealing with a dispute over whether a person who has already received reimbursement of medical expenses through a Mediclaim policy can again claim medical expenses before a MACT after a motor accident.
The insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited, argued that permitting both would amount to a “double benefit”. It relied on judgments which held that overlapping compensation under the same head should not be granted.
The claimant argued that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory entitlement, whereas a Mediclaim policy is a contractual benefit arising from payment of insurance premiums. Therefore, one could not reduce the other.
After examining conflicting decisions from several High Courts and earlier Supreme Court rulings, the Bench agreed with the claimant.
The Court held that amounts received under Mediclaim or medical insurance policies are not deductible from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, even where medical expenses are claimed under both.
“A Mediclaim policy is a policy that is purchased by a person, accounting for the uncertainties of life and preparing a financial base for an unfortunate possible eventuality,” the Court observed.
It added that denying such claims would unfairly deprive policyholders of the benefit of premiums paid by them over the years while also giving an unintended advantage to the insurer of the offending vehicle.
The Court clarified that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and reimbursement under a Mediclaim policy operate in different fields.
“One is statutory while the other is contractual,” the judgment said.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed and the matter was remanded to the Bombay High Court for determination consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The claimant was represented by C George Thomas, Aditya Kumar and Ila Nath.
The respondents were represented by Anand Dilip Landge, Sangeeta Nenwani, Revati Pravin Kharde, Shreenivas Patil and Rahul Prakash Pathak.
[Read Judgement]