62
“Law Master’s” Publication “Negotiable Instruments Act” Prof. S.D. Bhosale
knowing or understanding its terms. The Supreme Court held that this defence is not
available to a party who signs a document without taking reasonable care to ascertain its
contents and that the insured could not blame the insurance agent for his own negligence.
2. Principle of insurable interest:
This principle requires the insured to have a legal or financial interest in the subject
matter of the insurance contract, such that the insured would suffer a loss or damage if the
insured event occurred. The insurable interest must exist at the time of entering into the
the insured’s mother had an insurable interest in his (son's) life, as she was dependent on
him for her maintenance and support.
The contract of insurance has little resemblance to the wagering agreement, but it is
not a wagering agreement. The distinction between these two is well maintained by
legislatures. One of the essential requirements of a wagering agreement is that there should
not be any other interest in the event except the amount of the bet. In an insurance contract,
it is necessary that the person insured has ‘insurable interest’ in the subject matter insured.
The Insurance policy without ‘insurable interest’ is a wager. ‘Insurable interest’
means an interest in the ‘existence and preservation of the thing insured’. For example, if
the husband has an ‘insurable interest’ in his wife’s life, he can take an insurance policy on
his wife’s life by paying a regular premium. However, it is wager to take insurance in the
name of the other’s wife because it lacks ‘insurable interest’. Similarly, he can insure his
car, house or any other property because he has an interest in its existence and preservation
(i.e. Insurable interest’). But if he takes insurance on ‘The Great Wall of China’ or on ‘The
Taj Mahal’ or on ‘Best Bakery’ or any property of another. In that case, the agreement is a
wager due to the absence of insurable interest in the subject matter.
In Brahm Dutt Sharma V/s Life Insurance Corporation of India6
Facts: The plaintiff (Brahm Dun Sharma) financed an insurance policy taken by Mukhtar
Singh on his life for Rs. 35,000. Mukhtar Singh did not have sufficient means to afford an
insurance policy. Mukhtar Singh made the nomination in favour of the plaintiff and not in
favour of his own wife and children. On Mukhtar Singh's death, whether the plaintiff could
recover the sum insured arose.
The Court held:- that the plaintiff had affected and financed this insurance policy on the
life of the deceased without having an ‘insurable interest’ in his life, and as such, the
insurance contract was in the nature of a wagering contract and, therefore, void.
5 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3944 OF 2019
6
AIR 1966 All. 474.