Skip to main content

A surveyor's report is not the final word on settling insurance claims

When it comes to general insurance claims, a surveyor has long played God. He is the one on whose word insurance companies rely while handing out the money. For the uninitiated, a surveyor is a qualified professional, who assesses the nature and extent of your loss, and the insurer company processes your claim on the basis of the report that is prepared by him. However, in a recent case, the National Consumer Commission held that the surveyor's assessment need not be the final word while settling a claim.

Given the extent to which the insurance companies depend on the surveyor's report, this ruling is significant. It clearly establishes that companies must look beyond the assessment report, especially in cases of ambiguity.

The case

In April 2005, the owner of Uni Ply Industries insured the stock in his factory for Rs 30 lakh with New India Assurance, for a year. The insurance company issued a one-page policy cover note, but without any terms and conditions. The policyholder renewed the policy for another year in 2006, but before the term ended, a fire broke out in the factory, destroying stock worth Rs 19 lakh, as per the owner's estimate. However, the surveyor approved by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority ( Irda) assessed the loss at Rs 10 lakh. The insurer made a payment of only Rs 8 lakh to the factory owner by invoking the excess clause.

According to this clause, in the event of loss, a predetermined portion is paid by the policyholder. The factory owner protested, but accepted the Rs 8 lakh settlement as part payment. Later, when he asked the insurance company to pay the balance, his request was rejected on the grounds that the matter had already been settled. So, in 2007, the owner filed a case on the grounds of deficiency of service with the district commission, which ruled in his favour.

The insurance company's appeal to the state commission also went in favour of the policyholder. The New India Assurance then filed a revision petition with the National Commission, questioning the findings of the district and state commissions. The company's main argument was that it had processed the claim based on the findings of an independent surveyor and, hence, there was no deficiency in service. However, the National Commission held that it was incorrect on the part of the company to treat the payment of Rs 8 lakh as final settlement since the policyholder had accepted it only as partial relief; his signing the discharge voucher did not end the matter.

The ruling also referred to court precedent, or 'settled law', that a surveyor's assessment could not be treated as the final word. The Commission held that the company could not invoke the excess clause as it had failed to issue the terms and conditions of the policy to the factory owner.

The takeaway

With this ruling, the National Commission has reiterated the role that a surveyor plays in processing claims.

In other words, if there's doubt that the surveyor did not consider all material facts while arriving at the loss, the insurance company cannot rely solely on his opinion to settle a claim. The ruling also clearly establishes that if there is uncertainty about the loss amount, the insurance company should not invoke the excess clause

Article referred: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/personal-finance/insurance/insurance-news/a-surveyors-report-is-not-the-final-word-on-settling-insurance-claims/articleshow/21396006.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.