Legal Challenge on Insurance Benefits for Disabled Persons: Supreme Court Verdict

The Supreme Court recently delivered its verdict in the case of Ravi Agrawal vs. Union of India and Another. This case, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), revolved around the rights of disabled persons and the annuity benefits provided under the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) policy, particularly the Jeevan Aadhar Policy (Table 114).

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Ravi Agrawal, a differently-abled person suffering from Cerebral Dysphagia, filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The primary issue raised was the restrictive provisions of Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This section provides tax deductions for individuals or Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) who incur expenses on disabled dependents’ medical treatment or invest in insurance schemes for their future.

LIC introduced the Jeevan Aadhar Policy to cater to the needs of dependents with disabilities. However, a controversial clause prevented beneficiaries from receiving the annuity until the insured person’s death. The petitioner argued that this provision was discriminatory as it deprived disabled persons of financial security during their parents’ or guardians’ lifetimes.

Arguments of the Petitioner

Ravi Agrawal contended that:

• The policy should allow annuity benefits to be disbursed during the lifetime of the insured individual.
• The denial of benefits while the insured is alive contradicts the fundamental rights of disabled individuals under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• LIC agents misrepresented the policy terms to parents and guardians, falsely claiming that pension benefits would start immediately.

Arguments of the Respondents

The Union of India and LIC defended the existing structure of the policy, stating:

• The policy aligns with Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, which mandates annuity disbursal only after the policyholder’s death.
• The intention behind the policy is to provide financial security to disabled dependents once their guardians pass away.
• The government had considered modifications to the policy in 2007-08 but found them unviable.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, and S. Abdul Nazeer, acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns but upheld the existing legal provisions. The Court ruled that:

• The legislative intent behind Section 80DD is to ensure posthumous financial security for dependents with disabilities.
• The provision is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 as it applies uniformly to all insured persons.
• The Court cannot direct Parliament to amend a statutory provision but recommended reconsidering the provision’s restrictive nature.

The judgment urged the government to review Section 80DD and explore amendments that would allow dependents to access annuity benefits earlier.

Conclusion

The verdict underscores the importance of legislative clarity and financial security for persons with disabilities. While the Court refrained from modifying the existing law, its directive for a legislative review highlights the need for policy reforms in disability welfare and financial planning.

Petitioner Name: Ravi Agrawal.
Respondent Name: Union of India and Another.
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 03-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ravi Agrawal vs Union of India and A Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-01-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category