Consumer courts can’t hear insurance policyholder's complaints, LHC holds
Why This Matters
Key context: <p>LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that consumer courts lack jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed by policyholders against insurance companies.</p> <p>Justice Jawad Hassan issued the ruling on a petition filed by the United Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited against an order passed by the District Consumer Court in Bhakkar.</p> <p>The consumer court had overruled an objection raised by the insurance firm regarding the maintainability of a complaint filed by a policyholder.</p> <p>The district court had held that the complaint was maintainable simply because the dispute stemmed from the provision of insurance services.</p> <p>Setting aside the consumer court’s order, Justice Hassan observed that the lower forum failed to properly examine the relevant statutory framework, specifically Section 122 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.</p> <p>The judge noted that Section 122(3) of the Ordinance explicitly bars any court other than a specialised tribunal from exercising jurisdiction over claims brought by a policyholder against an insurance company in respect of or arising out of an insurance policy.</p> <blockquote class="blockquote-level-1"> <p>Orders issuance of fresh, reasoned decision on case’s maintainability within a month</p> </blockquote> <p>Referring to constitutional principles and settled judicial precedents, including the landmark Adamjee Insurance Company case, Justice Hassan highlighted that under Article 143 of the Constitution, competent federal legislation takes precedence over provincial enactments.</p> <p>Consequently, he said, where a special statute provides a specific mechanism and forum for dispute resolution, general laws such as consumer protection acts cannot be invoked to displace the jurisdiction of the specialised tribunal.</p> <p>The judge remanded the matter back to the consumer court with directions to re-examine the question of maintainability strictly in accordance with the law and binding judicial precedents. The judge said a fresh and reasoned decision should be issued within one month.</p> <p><em>Published in Dawn, November 13th, 2026</em></p> This development from dawn.com highlights ongoing changes in the sector.
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that consumer courts lack jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed by policyholders against insurance companies. Justice Jawad Hassan issued the ruling on a petition filed by the United Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited against an order passed by the District Consumer Court in Bhakkar. The consumer court had overruled an objection raised by the insurance firm regarding the maintainability of a complaint filed by a policyholder. The district court had held that the complaint was maintainable simply because the dispute stemmed from the provision of insurance services. Setting aside the consumer court’s order, Justice Hassan observed that the lower forum failed to properly examine the relevant statutory framework, specifically Section 122 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The judge noted that Section 122(3) of the Ordinance explicitly bars any court other than a specialised tribunal from exercising jurisdiction over claims brought by a policyholder against an insurance company in respect of or arising out of an insurance policy. Orders issuance of fresh, reasoned decision on case’s maintainability within a month Referring to constitutional principles and settled judicial precedents, including the landmark Adamjee Insurance Company case, Justice Hassan highlighted that under Article 143 of the Constitution, competent federal legislation takes precedence over provincial enactments. Consequently, he said, where a special statute provides a specific mechanism and forum for dispute resolution, general laws such as consumer protection acts cannot be invoked to displace the jurisdiction of the specialised tribunal. The judge remanded the matter back to the consumer court with directions to re-examine the question of maintainability strictly in accordance with the law and binding judicial precedents. The judge said a fresh and reasoned decision should be issued within one month. Published in Dawn, November 13th, 2026
Curation & Context
This page summarizes a public news report from dawn.com. Global News Hub provides the "Why This Matters" takeaway using editorial insights and AI curation to give readers rapid, high-value context before they click through to read the full article.