A claim at the notice stage
Captain Sumit Kamal Kapur died in the 28 January 2026 Baramati aircraft crash. His widow and children have asked the Delhi High Court to set aside New India Assurance’s 25 June rejection of an ₹85.6 lakh claim under a group Loss of Licence and Personal Accident policy arranged through the Federation of Indian Pilots. The family says the amount comprises an ₹80 lakh cover and cumulative benefits. The insurer invoked Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, which governs when an insurer may assume risk relative to premium receipt.
The family’s petition says the insurer had extended the period for renewals and new enrolments to 31 January 2026, three days after the crash. It argues that the insurer cannot rely on the premium timing rule after communicating that extension. These are pleaded positions; the public notice order did not establish that the captain was covered on the date of loss.
The premium question after the Supreme Court ruling
Section 64VB requires premium in advance, or a guarantee of payment in the prescribed manner where applicable, before the insurer assumes risk. The decisive file questions are when the group premium was due, who collected or remitted it, what the insurer actually received or validly guaranteed, and whether the captain was enrolled for the relevant period. An extended enrolment deadline alone does not establish that statutory coverage began.
In New India Assurance v Louis Dreyfus Commodities, decided on 18 August 2026, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to make an insurer cover additional risk retrospectively after the underlying exposure had exceeded the paid-for cover. It held that estoppel cannot override Section 64VB. That case involved a marine turnover policy and its own endorsement and payment record. It is an important constraint on the family’s waiver argument, but does not itself decide this group policy’s terms or premium trail.
What the High Court has decided
Justice Jasmeet Singh issued notice on 21 July 2026 and made the petition returnable on 19 August. Notice invited responses; it was not an order for payment. The family also seeks interest, quashing of the rejection and an IRDAI inquiry. The notice order supplies no merits finding that the claim was payable.
What Tatkal Claims would examine
The useful comparison is the insurer’s group schedule and member list against the Federation’s collection ledger, payment instructions, bank credit, renewal correspondence and any written extension authorised by the insurer. Those records may show whether this was an existing covered risk, a permitted premium arrangement, or an attempt to create cover after the loss. The Supreme Court’s decision makes that distinction especially important.
Because the family seeks ₹85.6 lakh, the Ombudsman’s ₹50 lakh monetary ceiling cannot simply be assumed to cover this petition. The choice of forum and remedy needs an assessment of the relief sought and the policy documents, including whether a writ claim is maintainable on these facts.
