S. Sreesanth's long-standing link with Rajasthan Royals has now taken a legal turn, with an IPL 2012 injury dispute landing the franchise in the Supreme Court.
Rajasthan Royals and Insurer Clash Over Injury Claim in Supreme Court
Rajasthan Royals claimed INR 82.80 lakh through their insurance policy, with the surveyor backing the claim, stating the injury was unforeseen. However, United India Insurance denied liability, arguing that Sreesanth was already carrying a pre-existing toe injury. With the impending hearing, the case was taken to the Supreme Court.
Rajasthan Royals later filed an insurance claim of INR 82.80 lakh, which was backed by a surveyor who deemed the injury unforeseen. However, United India Insurance rejected the claim, arguing that Sreesanth had a pre-existing toe injury.. With the matter unresolved, the case reached the Supreme Court..
Also Read: Australia ignores skipper Pat Cummins, announces: ‘Won’t be considered for India white-ball series’
Rajasthan Royals Gain Edge in Court Over Sreesanth’s 2012 Injury Claim
In court, RR’s representative and senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued that the toe injury was not career-threatening. Sreesanth had been cleared by the medical team to play, and it was the knee injury, not the toe, that ruled him out of action.
“The toe injury did not stop him from playing. He was playing! It was during a practice session that he suffered the knee injury,” Kaul stated.
Also read: Gautam Gambhir Names 'Most Stylish' Indian Player. It's Not Virat Kohli Or Hardik Pandya
The court took note of this and questioned United India Insurance on why they had insured Sreesanth if he was already carrying an injury. If the insurer was aware of the condition, they could have either declined the policy or charged a higher premium.
For now, the matter has been adjourned to allow the insured party to submit further documentation, including the original insurance application and Sreesanth’s medical fitness certificates.
“If the pre-existing toe injury was disclosed, the insurer could have either refused the coverage or charged a higher premium,” noted Justice Mehta during the hearing.
Also read: Gautam Gambhir Names 'Most Stylish' Indian Player. It's Not Virat Kohli Or Hardik Pandya
