M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mr. Padmanabha Shetty G.

 Yes. I found the recent Karnataka High Court judgment you appear to be referring to:

M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mr. Padmanabha Shetty G.

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru — 1 September 2026

W.P. No. 14682/2024 (GM-RES)

Judge: Justice Suraj Govindaraj. �

Indian Kanoon

What was the dispute?

Mr. Padmanabha Shetty was insured with National Insurance Company and was undergoing treatment for Stage IV prostate cancer.

The insurer had reimbursed other hospitalisation/treatment expenses but refused reimbursement of ₹2,85,470 spent on two injections:

Zoladex (Goserelin)

Xgeva (Denosumab)

The insurer's principal argument was that these injections were administered without hospitalisation, and therefore constituted outpatient treatment which was not covered under the policy. �

Indian Kanoon

The insured approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, Mangaluru, under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Permanent Lok Adalat directed reimbursement of ₹2,85,470 with 6% interest, besides ₹25,000 compensation. National Insurance challenged that decision before the Karnataka High Court. �

Indian Kanoon

What did the High Court decide?

The High Court dismissed National Insurance Company's writ petition and upheld the Permanent Lok Adalat's award.

Importantly, the Court directed the insurer to:

Pay the medical expenses ordered by the Permanent Lok Adalat, with up-to-date interest;

Do so within 30 days of receiving the judgment;

Pay an additional ₹50,000 as costs to the insured. �

Indian Kanoon

The important principle regarding health insurance

The Court's reasoning is particularly significant.

It found that the injections were prescribed as part of the continuing treatment and management of the insured's prostate cancer. The fact that modern medical treatment allowed the injections to be administered without hospitalisation did not, by itself, justify denying the claim. �

Indian Kanoon

The Court also made an important observation in substance: a patient should not be required to undergo medically unnecessary hospitalisation merely to satisfy an insurer's interpretation of a hospitalisation requirement. �

Indian Kanoon

At the same time, the judgment expressly recognised that compassion alone cannot enlarge an insurer's contractual liability. The Court's conclusion was based on its interpretation of the policy and the nature of the treatment, rather than simply on the seriousness of the disease. �

Indian Kanoon

Another important point — powers of the Permanent Lok Adalat

National Insurance also argued that the matter should be sent back to the Permanent Lok Adalat because the conciliation process under Section 22-C had not been adequately pursued.

The High Court rejected that argument. Since the insurer maintained that nothing at all was payable and had expressly declined to make any settlement offer, the Court considered that sending the matter back merely for another conciliation exercise would cause further delay. It emphasised that a Permanent Lok Adalat has statutory power to adjudicate the dispute when conciliation fails. �

Indian Kanoon

This aspect of the judgment could be quite important beyond this particular cancer claim.

Full judgment

Read the complete Karnataka High Court judgment — National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padmanabha Shetty G.⁠�

If you are interested because you have your own health-insurance claim, I can also analyse this judgment specifically from the standpoint of whether it can be relied upon against an insurer for rejecting a claim on the ground that treatment was OPD/non-hospitalisation—including the relevant paragraphs and earlier Supreme Court judgments the Karnataka HC relied upon.