Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan and others vs Mst.
This civil petition arises from the denial of insurance benefits by the appellant insurance corporation to the respondent widow of the deceased employee. The core legal questions involve whether the deceased breached his re-appointment declaration by holding concurrent employment as a school teacher, and whether the claim was barred under Section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 regarding the jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the declaration given at the time of re-appointment in 2002 did not prohibit other government or private employment outside of insurers, rendering the denial of benefits unlawful. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 does not apply to employment-connected insurance schemes such as group insurance and self-subscribed compulsory insurance where no formal insurance policy is issued to the employees. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
- Whether an employee's concurrent government employment violates a declaration against working for any other insurer.
- Does Section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 apply to employment-connected group and compulsory insurance schemes where no policy is issued?
- Section 115, Insurance Ordinance 2000
ORDER
1. 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.
2. 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."
3. 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."
4. 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.
5. 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-s ubscribed compulsory insurance and field self-subscribed group insurance. No policy is issued to the employe es in respect of any of these insurance covers provided to employees. Consequently , section 115 of the Insuran ce 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.-