{"id":16782,"date":"2021-03-28T16:27:39","date_gmt":"2021-03-28T16:27:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/insuropedia.in?p=16782"},"modified":"2026-03-25T11:12:39","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T11:12:39","slug":"five-recent-insurance-related-litigations-in-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/five-recent-insurance-related-litigations-in-the-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Read about Five recent insurance related litigations in the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"bsf_rt_marker\"><\/div><p>Five recent insurance related litigations in the Supreme Court and What They Mean for Policyholders<\/p>\n<p>I. Claims can be rejected if material information is not disclosed when buying insurance<\/p>\n<h2 data-path-to-node=\"5\">Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n<ul data-path-to-node=\"6\">\n<li>\n<p data-path-to-node=\"6,0,0\"><b data-path-to-node=\"6,0,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">The &#8220;Material Fact&#8221; Standard:<\/b> In the <i data-path-to-node=\"6,0,0\" data-index-in-node=\"37\">Rekhaben<\/i> case, the SC clarified that &#8220;material&#8221; means any information that would influence a &#8220;prudent insurer.&#8221; Disclosing other life insurance policies is mandatory, as it affects the insurer\u2019s assessment of &#8220;moral hazard&#8221; and total risk.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p data-path-to-node=\"6,1,0\"><b data-path-to-node=\"6,1,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Prohibition on &#8220;Afterthought&#8221; Defenses:<\/b> Insurers often try to find new reasons to reject a claim during litigation. The SC has now barred this; if a reason (like a delay in filing) isn&#8217;t in the initial rejection letter, the insurer cannot bring it up in court.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p data-path-to-node=\"6,2,0\"><b data-path-to-node=\"6,2,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Interpretation of Ambiguity:<\/b> The <i data-path-to-node=\"6,2,0\" data-index-in-node=\"33\">Contra Proferentem<\/i> rule is your strongest legal shield. If a policy clause is poorly drafted or has two possible meanings, the court will strictly apply the meaning that benefits the policyholder.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p data-path-to-node=\"6,3,0\"><b data-path-to-node=\"6,3,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Professional vs. Employee Status:<\/b> For doctors and specialists, the &#8220;Contract for Service&#8221; vs. &#8220;Contract of Service&#8221; distinction is critical. Since you operate as an independent professional, you have higher professional liability but also distinct rights under commercial and indemnity law.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p data-path-to-node=\"6,4,0\"><b data-path-to-node=\"6,4,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">The Importance of &#8220;Terms &amp; Conditions&#8221; Delivery:<\/b> Never accept a &#8220;Policy Schedule&#8221; without the full &#8220;Terms and Conditions&#8221; booklet. If an insurer cannot prove they gave you the fine print, they often cannot enforce the exclusions hidden within it.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><em>Reliance Life Insurance v. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod &#8211; Supreme Court litigation<\/em><\/h3>\n<p>This case was about a basic principle of insurance law: if the insured does not reveal important information when signing an insurance contract, the insurer can reject policy claims.<\/p>\n<p>In this case, Mrs Rathod\u2019s spouse had bought life insurance from Reliance Life Insurance in September 2009. However, Mrs Rathod had taken a <a href=\"https:\/\/securenow.in\/individual-insurance\/term-life-insurance\">life insurance policy<\/a> from Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in July 2009. Reliance. After the death of her spouse, Mrs Rathod made a claim under the policy in February 2010. While Reliance was making a decision on this claim, Max informed it of the previous insurance. Because Mrs Rathod had not revealed this information, Reliance rejected her claim.<\/p>\n<p>The District Commission dismissed Mrs Rathod\u2019s complaint because of her failure to disclose information. However, both the State and National Commissions allowed the appeal <em>noting that \u201cthe omission of the insured to disclose a previous policy of insurance would not influence the mind of a prudent insurer<\/em>.<em>\u201d<\/em> In appeal, the Supreme Court (SC) reversed this decision. It noted that not disclosing insurance obtained earlier was the suppression of a material fact, which would allow Reliance to reject the claim. Giving a wrong answer or not revealing important facts in the proposal form cancels the policy since it goes against \u201cgood faith\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>II. Insurance company must provide all reasons for rejecting a claim in the initial rejection letter<\/p>\n<h3><em>Branch Manager, Bajaj<\/em><em>\u00a0Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. <\/em><em> Dalbir Kaur<\/em><\/h3>\n<p>The SC set aside a verdict from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in this case. It noted that an insurance contract is of \u201cutmost good faith\u201d and anyone who wants life insurance must disclose all important facts. The NCDRC had dismissed Bajaj Allianz\u2019s plea against an order asking it to pay a full death claim with interest to the mother of the deceased. The SC bench headed by Justice D. Y. Chandrachud was hearing a plea by Bajaj against this NCDRC verdict.<\/p>\n<p>The SC noted that a proposal form specifically asks about pre-existing conditions to help the insurer evaluate risk. The proposer had not revealed that he was suffering from a pre-existing illness and was vomiting blood barely a month before the issuance of policy. Alcohol abuse had caused his pre-existing ailment. The insurer did not have these details. The court decided to set aside NCDRC judgement as it did not lay down the correct principle of law.<\/p>\n<p>The insured person\u2019s mother was 70 years old and had lost the support of her son. Considering this, the court used its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to not to recover the paid out amount.<\/p>\n<p>III. Unless the insured is duly informed, exclusionary clauses are not applicable<\/p>\n<h3><em>Supreme Court ruling on Litigation in case- Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd<\/em><em>. v.\u00a0<\/em><em>National Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/em><\/h3>\n<p>Saurashtra Chemicals bought a standard fire and special perils policy from National Insurance for the coal and lignite in its factory compound. It paid an additional premium to cover the risk of loss to the stock from spontaneous combustion.<\/p>\n<p>The Sick Industrial Companies Act had declared Saurashtra Chemicals\u00a0 a sick unit. They had closed the factory from 17 February 2006 to 9 August 2006. It reopened on 10 August 2006. Between 11 August and 20 August 2006, a spontaneous combustion destroyed some coal and lignite . National Insurance received a notice of the loss and damage. A surveyor assessed the total loss at Rs. 63,43,679.<\/p>\n<p>However, National Insurance rejected the claim saying there was no loss as specified in the policy because spontaneous combustion had not resulted in a fire.<\/p>\n<p>Saurashtra Chemicals then filed a consumer complaint before the NCDRC. National Insurance responded stating:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>No claim could be paid since the loss by spontaneous combustion was not covered.<\/li>\n<li>Since Saurashtra Chemicals had closed the factory for almost 6 months, the insurance cover ceased to operate. The policy stated that insurance would end if the building that had the insured property was unoccupied for more than 30 days.<\/li>\n<li>Delay in claim by more than 30 days, violating condition no. 6(i) of the policy\u2019s general conditions.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The NCDRC did not accept the first and second reasons. However, it found the third reason valid. It dismissed the complaint on breach of condition No. 6(i) of the policy since the insured did not submit the notice of the loss in writing within 15 days of the incident.<\/p>\n<p>Saurashtra Chemicals filed an appeal in the SC. The SC noted that the rejection letter did not mention the delay as a reason for rejection. National Insurance first mentioned the delay in its reply before the NCDRC. Therefore, SC allowed Saurashtra Chemicals\u2019 appeal.<\/p>\n<h3><em>New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Paresh Mohanlal Parmar- Supreme Court ruling<\/em><\/h3>\n<p>Mr Parmar bought a burglary and housebreaking insurance policy for 5 June 2003 to 4 June 2004 from New India Assurance for Rs. 20 lakh. During this period, there was a theft in Mr Parmar\u2019s warehouse. He reported the theft to the police and shared the information with New India Assurance. Their surveyor visited and submitted his preliminary report. New India Assurance claimed there was no forced entry because a duplicate key had been used to open the warehouse. It rejected the claim.<\/p>\n<p>The State Commission dismissed Mr Parmar\u2019s complaint. He then went to the NCDRC. It noted that the warehouse lock was found on the street and the culprit had been convicted under Section 454 IPC. Thus, it ruled that the culprit had forced open the warehouse . It also found that New India Assurance had not made Mr. Parmar aware of the relevant terms and conditions of the policy.<\/p>\n<p>New India Assurance filed an appeal in the SC. Mr Parmar argued that he had not been provided with the policy\u2019s terms and conditions. Thus, they could not reject his claim. The SC could not find any evidence to the contrary. It noted that the insurer(s) had to prove that the insured was aware of the policy\u2019s terms and conditions when the insurer issued the policy. The SC thus supported the NCDRC order to pay the claim.<\/p>\n<p>IV. Determining whether the insured is a regular employee and the use of the contra proferentum rule<\/p>\n<h3><em>Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi and Anr. v. New India Assurance Co Ltd and Ors.<\/em><\/h3>\n<p>A doctor travelling in a hospital vehicle died in an accident caused by the driver\u2019s carelessness. The hospital\u2019s arrangement was that New India Assurance would pay compensation for those not employed by the hospital. Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 covered the employees. The main issue, in this case, was whether the doctor was a hospital employee.<\/p>\n<p>The SC first examined the hospital contract. Was it a \u201cContract <em>for<\/em> Service,\u201d which suggests a relationship between equals on professional terms, or \u201cContract <em>of<\/em> Service,\u201d which implies a master-servant relationship? The SC ruled that the they could not treat the doctor as a regular hospital employee. His contract clearly showed that his services were provided as an independent professional. The SC thus applied the <em>contra proferentem<\/em>\u00a0principle. This states that the exclusion clause must be read against the insurer. The SC thus allowed compensation of INR 37.6 lakh to the appellants.<\/p>\n<p>The SC thus clarified the position on ambiguous policy, where the <em>contra proferentem<\/em> rule will be applied. In cases of ambiguity in the policy wording, the ruling would be against the party that has prepared the contract; in most cases, this is the insurance company.<\/p>\n<p>The SC also made it clear that doctors must be considered professionals. Their terms of service were different from those of general hospital employees.<\/p>\n<h2 data-path-to-node=\"2\">Summary: Supreme Court Rulings on Insurance Litigation<\/h2>\n<div class=\"horizontal-scroll-wrapper\">\n<div class=\"table-block-component\">\n<div class=\"table-block has-export-button\">\n<div data-hveid=\"0\" data-ved=\"0CAAQ3ecQahgKEwiRs5buu7-SAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQsgc\">\n<table data-path-to-node=\"3\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Legal Case<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Core Principle Established<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Policyholder Impact<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,1,0,0\"><b data-path-to-node=\"3,1,0,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Reliance Life v. Rekhaben Rathod<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,1,1,0\"><i data-path-to-node=\"3,1,1,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Uberrimae Fidei<\/i> (Utmost Good Faith)<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,1,2,0\">Claims can be rejected if prior insurance policies are not disclosed.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,2,0,0\"><b data-path-to-node=\"3,2,0,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Bajaj v. Dalbir Kaur<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,2,1,0\">Transparency in Rejection<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,2,2,0\">Insurers must disclose <i data-path-to-node=\"3,2,2,0\" data-index-in-node=\"23\">all<\/i> reasons for rejection in the first letter; they cannot add new grounds later.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,3,0,0\"><b data-path-to-node=\"3,3,0,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Saurashtra Chemicals v. National Insurance<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,3,1,0\">Exclusionary Disclosure<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,3,2,0\">Exclusion clauses are invalid unless the policyholder was explicitly informed of them at the time of purchase.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,4,0,0\"><b data-path-to-node=\"3,4,0,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">New India Assurance v. Paresh Parmar<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,4,1,0\">Burden of Proof on Insurer<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,4,2,0\">The insurer must prove that the terms and conditions were actually delivered to the insured.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,5,0,0\"><b data-path-to-node=\"3,5,0,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Sushilaben Gandhi v. New India Assurance<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,5,1,0\"><i data-path-to-node=\"3,5,1,0\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Contra Proferentem<\/i> Rule<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span data-path-to-node=\"3,5,2,0\">Ambiguous clauses are interpreted in favor of the insured. Doctors are viewed as &#8220;independent professionals,&#8221; not servants.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<h2>Conclusion<\/h2>\n<div class=\"table-content not-end-of-paragraph\" data-hveid=\"0\" data-ved=\"0CAAQ3ecQahgKEwiRs5buu7-SAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQsgc\">The five recent insurance-related litigations in the Supreme Court serve as significant reminders of the complexities and nuances within the insurance industry. These cases shed light on the importance of comprehensive policy interpretation, diligent claims handling, and adherence to contractual obligations. By closely studying these rulings on five recent insurance related litigations in the Supreme Court, insurers and policyholders can gain valuable insights into potential pitfalls, mitigating risks, and fostering a stronger foundation for fair and effective insurance practices.<\/div>\n<div data-hveid=\"0\" data-ved=\"0CAAQ3ecQahgKEwiRs5buu7-SAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQsgc\">\n<h3 data-path-to-node=\"8\">Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)<\/h3>\n<h4 data-path-to-node=\"9\"><b data-path-to-node=\"9\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Q1: What exactly is the <i data-path-to-node=\"9\" data-index-in-node=\"24\">Contra Proferentem<\/i> rule?<\/b><\/h4>\n<p data-path-to-node=\"9\">It is a legal doctrine stating that if a clause in a contract is ambiguous (vague or has multiple meanings), it should be interpreted <b data-path-to-node=\"9\" data-index-in-node=\"183\">against<\/b> the party that drafted it. Since insurance companies draft the policies, any lack of clarity usually results in a win for the policyholder.<\/p>\n<h4 data-path-to-node=\"10\"><b data-path-to-node=\"10\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Q2: Can an insurer reject my claim if I forget to mention a minor health check-up from 5 years ago?<\/b><\/h4>\n<p data-path-to-node=\"10\">The court distinguishes between &#8220;material&#8221; and &#8220;non-material&#8221; facts. However, recent trends show the court is becoming stricter. To avoid litigation, it is safer to disclose any medical history that resulted in a diagnosis, even if it seems minor to you.<\/p>\n<h4 data-path-to-node=\"11\"><b data-path-to-node=\"11\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Q3: Why was the doctor in the <i data-path-to-node=\"11\" data-index-in-node=\"30\">Sushilaben Gandhi<\/i> case not considered an employee?<\/b><\/h4>\n<p data-path-to-node=\"11\">The court used the &#8220;Control Test.&#8221; Since the hospital did not control <i data-path-to-node=\"11\" data-index-in-node=\"151\">how<\/i> the doctor performed surgeries (they only provided the infrastructure), it was a &#8220;Contract <b data-path-to-node=\"11\" data-index-in-node=\"246\">for<\/b> Service.&#8221; This allowed the family to claim higher compensation under the insurance policy rather than being limited by the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.<\/p>\n<h4 data-path-to-node=\"12\"><b data-path-to-node=\"12\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Q4: If I receive a rejection letter that says &#8220;Claim rejected due to pre-existing disease,&#8221; can the company later say &#8220;Also, you filed the claim too late&#8221;?<\/b><\/h4>\n<p data-path-to-node=\"12\">Based on the <i data-path-to-node=\"12\" data-index-in-node=\"169\">Saurashtra Chemicals<\/i> ruling, <b data-path-to-node=\"12\" data-index-in-node=\"198\">no<\/b>. Once the insurer issues a rejection letter, they are legally &#8220;locked in&#8221; to those reasons. They cannot add new grounds for rejection during a consumer forum or court hearing.<\/p>\n<h4 data-path-to-node=\"13\"><b data-path-to-node=\"13\" data-index-in-node=\"0\">Q5: What should I do if my insurance company never sent me the full policy booklet?<\/b><\/h4>\n<p data-path-to-node=\"13\">Keep a record of your request for the document (emails\/letters). If a claim arises and they try to use an exclusion clause you&#8217;ve never seen, you can cite <i data-path-to-node=\"13\" data-index-in-node=\"239\">New India Assurance v. Paresh Parmar<\/i> to argue that the exclusion is not binding.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n  \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\n  \"mainEntity\": [\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"What exactly is the Contra Proferentem rule?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Contra Proferentem is a legal principle stating that if a contract term is ambiguous, it should be interpreted against the party that drafted it. In insurance, since policies are written by insurers, unclear wording is generally interpreted in favour of the policyholder.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Can an insurer reject my claim if I forget to mention a minor health check-up from five years ago?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Courts usually distinguish between material and non-material facts when assessing disclosure. However, recent legal trends emphasise full and honest disclosure. To avoid disputes, it is advisable to disclose any past medical history that resulted in a diagnosis, even if it appears minor.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Why was the doctor in the Sushilaben Gandhi case not considered an employee?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"The court applied the control test to determine employment status. Since the hospital did not control how the doctor performed medical procedures and only provided infrastructure, the relationship was considered a contract for service rather than employment, allowing higher compensation claims under the insurance framework.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"If my claim is rejected for a pre-existing disease, can the insurer later add new reasons such as delayed filing?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Generally, once an insurer issues a formal rejection letter specifying the reasons for denial, they are expected to rely on those grounds. Courts have held that insurers typically cannot introduce new reasons for rejection later during legal proceedings.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"What should I do if my insurance company never provided the full policy booklet?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"You should maintain records of your requests for the policy document. If a dispute arises and the insurer relies on an exclusion that was never shared with you, such documentation may support your position in challenging the applicability of that exclusion.\"\n      }\n    }\n  ]\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<h4><b>Written By- <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ritesh Garg<\/span><\/h4>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">MBA Insurance and Risk<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ritesh is a distinguished writer specializing in articles on Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance for SecureNow. Leveraging 7 years of experience in the field, he possesses a thorough understanding of the intricacies and nuances of CGL policies. His articles delve into various aspects of CGL insurance, providing readers with valuable insights into liability coverage for businesses and risk mitigation strategies. Renowned for their expertise and clarity, Ritesh is dedicated to delivering informative and engaging content that empowers businesses to protect themselves against potential liabilities and risks.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Five recent insurance related litigations in the Supreme Court and What They Mean for Policyholders I. Claims can be rejected if material information is not disclosed when buying insurance Key Takeaways The &#8220;Material Fact&#8221; Standard: In the Rekhaben case, the SC clarified that &#8220;material&#8221; means any information that would influence a &#8220;prudent insurer.&#8221; Disclosing other [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_lmt_disableupdate":"no","_lmt_disable":"no","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[319,642],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media","category-commercial-general-liability"],"acf":[],"modified_by":"SecureNow","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16782","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16782"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16782\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35920,"href":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16782\/revisions\/35920"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/securenow.in\/insuropedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}