Skip to main content

Insurance - Filling of claims within 7 days


Five years after losing her husband in an accident, Manisha Devi, the widow of a CRPF jawan, will finally get insurance after a district consumer forum in Delhi ruled in her favour.

Noting that the insurance company's action was "unjustified", District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) has asked Oriental Insurance Company to pay Rs 4.5 lakh as insurance to the widow and an additional Rs 1 lakh as compensation for "harassment, mental pain and agony".

The forum also directed the company to deduct the compensation from the salary of the branch manager who rejected Manisha's claim. "We direct that this amount of Rs 1 lakh shall be recovered by the insurance company from the salary of the branch manager who rejected the claim of the complainant... The amount of compensation is the result of an unjustified action of the insurance company authorities who rejected the bona fide claim of the complainant," the order passed by N A Zaidi, president of the forum, and T Vijayan, a member, said. The bench also remarked that "we have been observing in case of insurance companies that they are interested in prolonging the insurance and their main object is to deny the claim on one ground or the other, whether that ground is available or not".

Manisha had filed a complaint with the district forum in the capital in 2010, alleging the insurance company repudiated her claim. Vijay Kumar had two insurance policies amounting to Rs 4,50,500, in which Manisha was a nominee. Before approaching the east Delhi forum, Manisha had filed a complaint with Narnaul's district forum and the Haryana state consumer disputes redressal commission. The Narnaul district forum had dismissed the claim on the grounds of "lack of territorial jurisdiction" .

Manisha had sought Rs 1 lakh by way of compensation and Rs 50,000 as litigation expense along with the sum she was entitled to. The company said the "claim filed by the complainant was against the terms and conditions" stipulating that a claim made later than seven days from the date of loss will not be entertained. "The intimation of loss was received on June 11, 2007, whereas the accident had taken place on June 1, 2007," the insurance company argued.

But the forum said that in such cases the families are always in shock; so it takes some time before they can lay hands on the documents and think about filing the claim.

Most companies seem to be interested in prolonging the insurance and their object is to deny the claim, the bench said.

It is actions like these which put the insurance companies in such bad light. This mess when IRDA has clearly mentioned back in Sept, 2011, that "insurance companies not to mechanically reject claims on technical grounds, like delay in filing claim documents. 

IRDA has issued these directives following complaints that claims are being rejected on grounds of delay in intimation and submission of documents to insurers. 

"Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policy holders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation," the regulator said in a communication to life and non-life insurance companies. 

Although the policyholders are required to file claims within a prescribed time frame, the IRDA said, "this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances." 
Advising insurers to suitably enunciate their stand to condone delay on merit in policy papers, the regulator said "..such limitation clause (of filing documentation) does not work in isolation and is not absolute". 

It further said insurers should develop a mechanism to handle such claims with "utmost care and caution". 

Insurers, it said, must not repudiate claims unless the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained and recorded.

Besides, the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time."

In view of such unequivocal statement, the unyielding attitude of the insurance companies is unfortunate.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more