Sreesanth Insurance Claim Scandal-Rajasthan Royals and the Supreme Court Fight

S Sreesanth and the Rajasthan Royals insurance claim have become a saga of a long legal battle that now reached as far as the Supreme Court. What started as a basic insurance claim over an injury suffered while playing in the 2012 Indian Premier League has escalated to become an issue concerning arguments regarding pre existing injuries non disclosure of facts and the insurance company's role in sports contracts. This case has gained notice since it illustrates how professional cricket teams insure their players and how controversies can occur whenever policies are questioned.

As early as 2012 Sreesanth had injured his knee in a practice session that kept him out of the entire season of the IPL. The Rajasthan Royals whose players were insured under a special contingency policy promptly made a claim for over eighty two lakh rupees to compensate for the loss of player fees. The franchise contended that the knee injury occurred during the period of insurance and was sudden and unexpected. In their view this was precisely the type of risk the policy had been taken out to cover. They attributed the player's withdrawal from the tournament to this new injury only and they expected the insurer to pay the claim.

But United India Insurance Company viewed things differently. They denied the complaint stating Sreesanth had also been suffering from a toe injury in 2011 already. In their view, the franchise did not reveal this pre-existing condition while purchasing the policy. The company submitted that this toe injury directly impacted whether or not the player would have been fit to play in the 2012 season in the first place. For them the not disclosing this information was sufficient to deny the entire claim irrespective of the knee injury. They maintained that had they been made aware of the previous toe injury they could have declined to insure Sreesanth or demanded an extra premium.

The case first came before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. After hearing out the case the NCDRC passed a judgment in the Rajasthan Royals' favor. They held that the knee injury which occurred within the insurance period was the actual cause of Sreesanth not being able to play and hence the insurance company was bound to pay. The commission also observed that even the surveyor of the insurance company had conceded that the knee injury was sudden and unexpected which came within the purview of the policy. Based on this, the Royals got the claim.

But the tale didn't end there. United India Insurance decided to appeal the decision and approached the Supreme Court. A bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta started hearing the case. In the course of the proceedings the bench posed some pointed questions including if the toe injury was revealed by the franchise while taking the insurance. The judges added that if the injury had actually been disclosed the insurance company should either not have insured the player initially or should have modified the terms of the policy. They instructed both sides to provide additional documents such as Sreesanth's medical fitness certificates and the original application form for taking the insurance policy. These facts would assist the court in determining whether the argument of non disclosure had any substance.

Before the court, United India Insurance was represented by the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. She contends that the NCDRC had not dealt with the aspect of non disclosure properly. To her, the company was not rejecting the knee injury but their key point was that the toe injury had never been disclosed while it was against the conditions of the insurance policy. She emphasized that the policy was subject to full disclosure of every pre existing ailment and that otherwise the insurance stood null and void.

For the other side senior lawyer Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared for the Rajasthan Royals. He insisted that the previous toe injury had no impact on Sreesanth's playing ability and that the player was contributing actively until the new knee injury put him out of action. Kaul was stressing that the intention of the policy was to cover teams against loss of money if a player were to be injured in the course of the tournament and that is precisely what has occurred here. He further highlighted that fitness certificates were also given to the insurance company both when the policy was purchased and after the knee injury was sustained. He contended that the insurer was now attempting to deny payment on the grounds of an earlier injury which had no effect on the 2012 season.

The case also brought out information regarding the insurance policy itself. The Rajasthan Royals had bought a Special Contingency Insurance for Player Loss of Fees Cover for over eight crore seventy lakh rupees. This policy was designed to compensate for losses should contracted players miss matches when they get injured or for any covered reasons. Sreesanth's knee injury occurred on the same day that the policy was activated. He was immediately rendered unavailable for the season after a medical assessment. The franchise hence lodged a claim for eighty two lakh rupees in September 2012. The insurer appointed surveyor verified that the knee injury was unexpected and sudden. However even with such verification, the insurance company denied the claim based on non disclosure of the injury to the toe.

When the issue was brought up in the Supreme Court Justice Mehta raised a pertinent question. He inquired whether the fitness certificate had contained any mention of the injury to the toe. This information could determine if there was concealment of facts or not. The bench also noted that even if disclosure had been given the insurance company might have made a different choice at the time of writing the policy. This makes the issue of disclosure pivotal to the whole controversy.

For the present, the Supreme Court has adjourned the case and requested further documents from both sides. These are the original application forms of the insurance and Sreesanth's medical history. Only after going through these documents will the bench decide if the NCDRC judgment is valid or if there is a case in the appeal by the insurer.

This scandal is more than a monetary dispute. It points out the intricacy of sports insurance and transparency of contracts. It illustrates how one sentence regarding an old injury can be the epicenter of years of litigation. For Rajasthan Royals the case is the right to recover losses when a contracted player gets injured during the season. For United India Insurance it is all about imposing the doctrine of full disclosure and safeguarding themselves from claims that they feel should not have been insured.