Skip to main content

Insured should be told about exclusion clause

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that repudiation of an insurance claim by invoking an exclusion clause which was not brought to the notice of the insured is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Holding Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd guilty of deficiency in service, the commission directed it to pay the widow of a biker who died in an accident in 2009 the Rs 5 lakh insurance amount along with compensation of Rs 1.60 lakh. The company had repudiated the claim on the ground that 121 mg/ltr of ethyl alcohol was found in the blood sample of the insured victim at the time of the mishap, which violated the policy's terms and conditions.

On December 24, 2009, Achala Marde's husband Rudrani met with an accident and died before being admitted to the hospital. Subsequently, Achala's insurance claim was rejected; following which a district forum rejected her complaint. Aggrieved, in 2011, she filed an appeal in the state commission.

Achala contended that medicines administered to save her husband's life had ethyl substance which reflected in his blood reports. She also said that Rudrani never consumed liquor or any intoxicating substance. Achala alleged that the terms and conditions relied upon by the insurance company were not brought to her husband's notice.

The insurance firm argued that the claim was repudiated for violation of exclusion clause of the policy, stating that the insured was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident.

The commission pointed out that the police panchnama explicitly says that the insured was hit in the motorbike accident by the rash and negligent driving of the oncoming motorcyclist and criminal proceedings have been lodged against him. It held that it can in no way be established that the presence of alcohol in the blood analysis report was a contributory cause to the fatal accident.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-01/mumbai/40961001_1_insurance-claim-insurance-firm-fatal-accident

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...