Exploring Remedies for Insurance Disputes: Understanding the Legal Remedies  



Exploring Remedies for Insurance Disputes: Understanding the  Legal Remedies


Insurance disputes arise when there is a disagreement between the insured and the insurer regarding policy terms, claims, or coverage. To address these disputes, several legal remedies are available, designed to protect the interests of policyholders and ensure fair treatment by insurance companies. One primary legal remedy is filing a lawsuit. Policyholders can sue their insurer for breach of contract if the insurer denies a legitimate claim or fails to fulfill its policy obligations. Courts can award damages to compensate for the loss incurred due to the breach. In some jurisdictions, policyholders may also claim punitive damages if the insurer’s conduct is found to be particularly egregious. Another common remedy is arbitration. Many insurance policies include arbitration clauses that require disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation. Arbitration is typically faster and less formal than court proceedings, and the arbitrator’s decision is binding and enforceable. Mediation is a less adversarial alternative where a neutral third party helps both sides negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution. While mediation is not binding, it often leads to a quicker and less costly settlement. Administrative remedies are also available through state insurance departments or regulatory agencies. Policyholders can file complaints against insurers with these agencies, which can investigate and, if necessary, impose penalties or require corrective actions against the insurer. In addition, some jurisdictions provide for statutory remedies, such as the right to attorney’s fees, interest on delayed payments, or additional damages under consumer protection laws. These remedies incentivize insurers to handle claims promptly and fairly. Policyholders should also consider the possibility of class action lawsuits when numerous individuals face similar disputes with an insurer. This can be an effective way to address widespread issues and achieve collective redress. the legal remedies for insurance disputes include litigation, arbitration, mediation, administrative complaints, and statutory protections. These mechanisms aim to ensure that policyholders receive the benefits they are entitled to and that insurance companies adhere to fair practices.


Insurance Disputes, Legal Remedies, Claim Denial, Breach of Contract, Bad Faith, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, Insurance Claim Appeal, Policyholder Rights, Declaratory Judgment, Consumer Protection Laws, Regulatory Complaint Punitive Damages, Compensatory Damages, Reformation, Rescission, Insurance Fraud, Coverage Dispute, Settlement Negotiation, Class Action Lawsuit, Policy Interpretation, Subrogation, Equitable Relief, Dispute Resolution, Clause Notice of Loss, Proof of Loss, Legal Counsel, Insurance Commissioner, State Insurance Department.



In India, insurance is provided in the form of an indemnity agreement between the insurance company and the client. The majority of insurance disputes are often civil, but they can sometimes be criminal in nature because they Centre on a contractual term and how it should be interpreted, as well as the coverage’s extent. Insurance may be effectively viewed as a social tool that functions with other social structures to diminish the financial risk that might result from the loss of life or property. It is a tool that aggregates enough exposure units so that the sum of their individual losses may be predicted. In order to guarantee the recovery of a significant unpredictable financial loss which may happen to him owing to the occurrence of some specified uncertain event, the insured person willingly agrees to incur a little financial loss i.e. the regular payment of the premium amount. Today, this action is seen as a crucial component of a person’s effort toward prudent fiscal planning and risk mitigation. In India, the rate of insurance penetration is among the world’s lowest, and almost 80% of the population lacks life insurance. There are 57 insurance companies in the Indian insurance market; 24 are engaged in the life insurance sector, and 34 are non-life insurance companies. LIC is the only company in the public sector that provides life insurance. In the non-life insurance business, there have been 6 public sector insurers. In addition to these, General Insurance Corporation of India is the only national reinsurer (GIC Re). Agents (corporate and individual), brokers, surveyors, and third-party administrators handling health insurance claims are other market participants in India. The size of the insurance market in India is enormous, and it is expanding at a speed of 15-20 per cent every year. The Insurance Act of 1938, as revised from time to time, and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act of 1999, which created IRDA, the statutory supervisor of the market, are the main laws that govern the insurance industry. An important turning point in India’s history of insurance regulations was the creation of the IRDA. The purpose of this Act is to both guarantee the interests of the insured as stated in its preamble and to encourage the industry’s orderly growth. In fact, these two pieces of legislation have established the legal framework under which the insurance sector must operate going forward. Other organizations and self-regulatory bodies play important roles in the implementation of this fundamental legislative framework, in addition to IRDA.

Insurance Litigation Process in India

India does not use the jury system. The judge decides on all claims, and the norms of pleading and evidence are fairly similar to those used in other countries. Most insurance plans have provisions addressing venue and the contract governing law. The clause which specifies the courts that will have the authority to resolve any disagreements that might develop with the policy. However, since parties cannot exclude the jurisdiction of a court with territorial jurisdiction and grant the same to a court without it, any court with territorial jurisdiction generally can hear a case. The details regarding the policy’s or contract’s relevant and governing law are provided in the governing law clause***. Foreign law cannot be chosen as the policies governing legislation by two Indian parties. Indian courts can resolve any argument relating to how to interpret the jurisdiction and controlling law provision. Section 44-A of CPC 1908, when read in conjunction with Section 13, governs the acceptance and enforcement of foreign judgements and decrees in India. In the case of “reciprocating territories” or other territories, a foreign judgment that is conclusive under Section 13 of the Code may be implemented by instating execution proceedings under Section 44-A read with Order XXI of the CPC, 1908, or by instituting a civil suit on the judgment. If the insurance does not contain a jurisdiction clause, the issue may be decided by any court to whom jurisdiction has been granted in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The civil court or consumer court in which the problem is determined relies upon the cost of the dispute and the geographical regulations of the defendant’s coverage company’s office, in which the reason of motion for the dispute arose. Both civil courts and consumer forums have territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

Legal Remedies Available in Case of Insurance Disputes

Insurance disputes can arise for a variety of reasons, including claim denials, delayed payments, underpayments, and policy cancellations. When such disputes occur, policyholders have several legal remedies at their disposal. This article outlines the primary legal avenues available to individuals and businesses facing insurance disputes:

  1. Reviewing the Insurance Policy

Before taking any legal action, policyholders should thoroughly review their insurance policy. Understanding the terms, conditions, and exclusions is crucial, as these documents serve as the foundation for resolving disputes. In many cases, disputes arise from misunderstandings or misinterpretations of policy language.

  1. Internal Appeals Process

Most insurance companies have an internal appeals process designed to resolve disputes without litigation. Policyholders should take advantage of this process by submitting a formal appeal to the insurer, including all relevant documentation and evidence supporting their claim. This step is often a prerequisite before pursuing external legal remedies.

  1. State Insurance Department Complaints

If the internal appeals process does not yield a satisfactory result, policyholders can file a complaint with their state’s insurance department. State insurance regulators oversee insurance companies and enforce compliance with state laws and regulations. They can investigate complaints, mediate disputes, and sometimes even impose penalties on insurers for unfair practices.

  1. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Alternative Dispute Resolution methods, such as mediation and arbitration, offer a less formal and often quicker way to resolve insurance disputes compared to court litigation.

  1. Mediation: This involves a neutral third-party mediator who facilitates negotiations between the policyholder and the insurer to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Mediation is non-binding, meaning either party can still pursue litigation if the mediation fails.
  1. Arbitration: In arbitration, a neutral arbitrator hears evidence and arguments from both sides and then makes a binding decision. Arbitration can be quicker and less expensive than court proceedings, but the parties typically must abide by the arbitrator’s decision.
  2. Litigation

When all other avenues fail, policyholders may file a lawsuit against their insurance company. Litigation is often the last resort due to its time-consuming and costly nature. However, it can be necessary for resolving complex disputes or when significant amounts of money are involved.

  1. Breach of Contract: The most common legal basis for an insurance dispute lawsuit is breach of contract. The policyholder must prove that the insurer failed to fulfill its obligations under the policy terms.
  2. Bad Faith Claims: If an insurer’s actions are particularly egregious, policyholders can sue for bad faith. Bad faith claims arise when insurers deny benefits without a reasonable basis, fail to investigate claims properly, or unreasonably delay payments. Successful bad faith claims can result in the policyholder receiving compensation beyond the original claim amount, including punitive damages.
  3. Declaratory Judgment: In some cases, policyholders seek a declaratory judgment from the court to interpret the insurance policy’s terms. This can clarify the rights and obligations of both parties without waiting for an actual breach to occur.
  4. Class Action Lawsuits

In situations where multiple policyholders are affected by similar issues with an insurer, a class action lawsuit may be appropriate. Class actions can be an efficient way for individuals with smaller claims to pool resources and challenge large insurance companies. Successful class actions can lead to significant settlements or changes in the insurer’s practices.

  1. Seeking Assistance from Insurance Attorneys

Navigating insurance disputes can be complex, and legal representation can be invaluable. Insurance attorneys specialize in these types of disputes and can offer expert advice, negotiate with insurers, and represent policyholders in court if necessary.

Limitation Period for Filing an Insurance Claim:

The way of evaluating the limitation period for insurance claims is given under Article 44(b) of the Limitation Act 1963, which expresses that time is to be determined from ‘the date of the event causing the misfortune, or where the case on the arrangement is denied either part of the way or completely, the date of such rebuttal’. The recommended limitation period for filing a case in the civil court or mediation is three years, while the limited time frame for documenting a case in the consumer court is two years.

Judicial Interpretation

  1. Janina Construction Company v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Ors. I (2022) CPJ119(SC)

Policy type- Motor Insurance Policy

The insurer repudiated the insured’s claim in toto on the ground that there was a delay in informing the insurance company regarding the theft of the vehicle. The condition in question mandated the insured to give immediate notice to the insurer of the accidental loss/damage but was given by the insured after a lapse of 5 months from the loss. Relying on Gur Shinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2020 (11) SCC 612, the Supreme Court observed since the FIR was lodged immediately on the next day of the occurrence of theft of the vehicle by the insured and the vehicle could not be traced out, a delay of about five months in informing and lodging the claim with the insurer would not be fatal. The Court held that when the insurer has repudiated the claim only on the ground of delay, and the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the insurer’s repudiation could not be sustained.

  1. Jacob Punnen and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2022) CPJ87(SC)

Policy type- Medical Insurance Policy

The Supreme Court rejected the insurer’s argument that the consumer was under an obligation to inquire about the terms of the policy, and any changes that might have been introduced, in the standard terms. The state of the law as observed was that an insurer was under a duty to disclose any alteration in the terms of the contract of insurance, at the formation stage or as in this case, at the stage of renewal. The insurer cannot be heard to say that the insured was under an obligation to satisfy itself, if a new term had been introduced. In the facts of the case, the Court observed that medical or health insurance cover becomes crucial with advancing age; the policy holder is more likely to need cover; therefore, if there are freshly introduced limitations of liability, the insured may, if advised properly, and in a position to afford it, seek greater coverage, or seek a different kind of policy. Further, most policies – health and medical insurance policies being no exception, are in standard form. One who seeks coverage of a life policy/a personal risk, such as accident or health policy has little choice but to accept the offer of certain standard term contracts. Therefore, relying on the IRDA (Health Insurance) Regulations, 2016, the Court observed that it is the insurer’s obligation to inform every policy holder, about any important changes that would affect her or his choice of product.

3.Khatema Fibers Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. IV (2021) CPJ1(SC)

Policy type- Standard Fire and Special Perils

In the instant case, the Supreme Court observed that in cases where the insurance company admitted the insured’s claim, to the extent of the loss as assessed by the surveyor, the jurisdiction of the special forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited. To establish deficiency, the insured should be able to establish, that the surveyor did not comply with the code of conduct in respect of his duties, responsibilities and other professional requirements as specified by the Regulations made under the Insurance Act, 1938. The Court finally held that a Consumer Forum which is primarily concerned with an allegation of deficiency in service cannot subject the surveyor’s report to forensic examination of its anatomy. Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on ad hocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop.

4.Reliance Life Insurance v. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod – Supreme Court litigation.

This case was about a basic principle of insurance law: if the insured does not reveal important information when signing an insurance contract, the insurer can reject policy claims.


In the complex landscape of insurance, disputes are an unfortunate but inevitable reality. These disagreements can arise from various sources, including coverage denials, claim delays, disputes over policy interpretation, and disagreements regarding the extent of damages. When these conflicts emerge, policyholders often find themselves in a vulnerable position, grappling with financial strain, emotional stress, and uncertainty about their rights and recourse. Fortunately, the legal system provides avenues for resolution in the event of insurance disputes, offering a range of remedies designed to protect policyholders and ensure fair treatment. These remedies serve as crucial safeguards, balancing the interests of insurers and insured parties while upholding the principles of justice and accountability. One of the primary legal remedies available to policyholders facing insurance disputes is litigation. Through civil lawsuits, aggrieved parties can seek judicial intervention to enforce the terms of their insurance policies, challenge wrongful denials or delays, and pursue compensation for damages incurred. Litigation offers a formalized process for presenting evidence, arguing legal interpretations, and obtaining a binding resolution from a court of law. While litigation can be time-consuming, costly, and emotionally draining, it remains a potent tool for holding insurers accountable and securing just outcomes. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms also play a Crucial role in resolving insurance disputes outside of traditional courtroom proceedings. Mediation, arbitration, and negotiation offer policyholders and insurers the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue, facilitated by neutral third parties, with the goal of reaching mutually acceptable settlements. These approaches can offer advantages such as faster resolution times, reduced expenses, and greater flexibility in crafting creative solutions tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. The legal landscape offers a diverse array of remedies for policyholders grappling with insurance disputes. From litigation and alternative dispute resolution to regulatory oversight and contractual mechanisms, these remedies serve as essential safeguards, ensuring that insured parties have access to fair treatment, timely resolution, and meaningful recourse when conflicts arise. By understanding their rights and options under the law, policyholders can navigate insurance disputes with confidence, secure in the knowledge that the legal system stands ready to uphold their interests and enforce accountability within the insurance industry.

Written By: Hari Raghava JP


Kerala High Court: Landlord is not responsible for damages done to a third party by a tenant’s business

Case Title: Johny Padikala versus P.C.Hassan and other

Case No: RFA No.544 of 2004.

Decided on : 9th February of 2024.

Quorum: Justice Sathish Ninan

Facts of the case:

The first defendant is the owner of a shop and he gave the room to second defendant for storing explosive substances. The plaintiff is the owner to the opposite building of defendant. There was a huge explosion in first defendant building because of that the plaintiff building was completely damaged. And third defendant is denied because he did not take part in the business.

Trial court found that business was done only by second defendant. So the claim has been dismissed on third defendant. The first defendant liable because he was the owner to the place where explosives has been stored so he faced challenges against this.

Trial court has raised a question is first defendant will be liable when the business was occupied by the tenant. Mainly the first defendant is a partner and also the owner of the place as it is liable for damages. And there is no evidence that there is partnership with second defendant. So it fails. They are considering regarding that he was a owner. But he gave for lease for dangerous activity. It is an absolute liability. So he will be liable.


The plaintiff says that three of the defendants were doing joint business as partners. It is filed for claiming damages of 3 lakhs. So the first defendant(owner) did not accept the allegation because he is not at all involved in it. He said that it was given lease to the second defendant. And the second defendant was doing his business with all proper licenses. It was not his negligence from his side and took precautions too.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

It is considered from the previous case laws that is Ryland versus Fletcher (1868)L.R.3 H.L.330 it states that a person who stores dangerous activities provides few exceptions. In Santha versus Secretary 214 (1)KHC 723 says that owner of the premise will be liable for the conduct of dangerous activity. The suit against first defendant will stand dismissed .1st Defendant cannot be held liable for the damages claimed. The trial court has not discussed regarding the liability of the 1st defendant but proceeded to find that defendants 1 and 2 are liable. The appeal is allowed. The decree and Judgment of the trial court insofar as it is against the 1st defendant is set aside. The suit as against the  1st defendant will stand dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace

Click to view the judgement