The Supreme Court of India emphasised that lawyers must disclose both favourable and unfavourable judgments before courts, observing that contradictory rulings create uncertainty and stressing advocates’ duty to ensure judicial consistency by informing courts about relevant and latest legal pronouncements across jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court has recently emphasised that lawyers must highlight to the Court both decisions that support their case and those that do not, cautioning that contradictory judicial pronouncements create uncertainty in the legal system.
It 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. It is here that the counsel’s awareness of law and grasp on facts are their greatest assets, enabling them to distinguish judgments that may seemingly be against them and still secure a favourable order. This duty is all the more important in the present day because all the Courts are polyvocal. Tens of orders and judgments are pronounced every day across a range of issues and so, the Court before which they are appearing may not be aware of the latest pronouncement. They must disclose the same to the Court ensuring consistency. ”
The Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi observed that unresolved inconsistencies in judicial decisions create uncertainty in the legal system and make it difficult for courts and lawyers to ensure predictable outcomes. Conflicting judgments often encourage litigants to expect varying results in similar matters, weakening the authority of settled precedents and affecting consistency, certainty, and efficiency in the administration of justice.
The Court further noted that advocates have a duty not only towards their clients but also towards the justice delivery system. Lawyers are expected to assist courts by citing judgments that support as well as oppose their case. Their understanding of law and facts enables them to distinguish unfavourable precedents while ensuring that courts remain informed about recent legal developments.
The Bench made this remark while adjudicating whether amounts received under a Mediclaim policy can be subtracted from compensation awarded by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).
The Court observed that High Courts around the country including benches within the same High Court have reached conflicting conclusions on the issue. Explaining the role of legal practitioners in maintaining consistency in the law, the Court stated,
The Bench further noted that this duty assumes greater significance because courts today are “polyvocal”, with multiple benches delivering rulings across different areas of law every day. At the same time, the Court made it clear that responsibility cannot fall on lawyers alone.
The Bench observed,
“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,”
At the same time, the Court emphasised that the responsibility cannot rest solely on advocates, as judges also have an independent obligation to apply correct legal principles, maintain consistency with precedents, and avoid per incuriam decisions.
It said,
“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.”
Recognising the heavy workload faced by courts daily, the judgment stated that both the Bar and the Bench must work together to minimise inconsistencies and improve judicial efficiency.
These observations were made in a decision concerning a dispute over whether a claimant who had already received reimbursement of medical expenses through a Mediclaim policy could again seek medical expenses before a MACT after a motor accident.
The insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited, argued that allowing both would amount to a “double benefit.” It relied on earlier decisions holding that overlapping compensation under the same head should not be permitted.
The claimant countered that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory right, while Mediclaim benefits are contractual and depend on premiums paid. The claimant therefore submitted that one should not be used to reduce the other.
After reviewing inconsistent decisions from various High Courts and earlier rulings of the Supreme Court, the Bench sided with the claimant.
The Court held that reimbursements received under Mediclaim or similar medical insurance policies are not deductible from compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, even if medical expenses are claimed under both frameworks.
The Court observed,
“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,”
It further stated that denying such claims would unjustly deprive policyholders of the value of premiums paid over the years, while simultaneously providing an unintended gain to the insurer for the offending vehicle.
The Court clarified that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and reimbursement under a Mediclaim policy arise in different legal spheres.
The judgment said,
“One is statutory while the other is contractual,”
In line with this, the Supreme Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal and remanded the matter to the Bombay High Court to decide in accordance with the 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.
Case Title: The New India Insurance Company Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE