The Thane District Consumer Redressal Forum has pulled up the New India Assurance Company for refusing to accept an insurance claim of a businessman on the grounds that rainwater and not flood water had destroyed his goods.
Citing that the insurance company's defense to refuse claim on such technical grounds as unjust, the forum has directed the company to pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 and insurance of Rs 8.46 lakh at six per cent interest to Ajay Shivnani of M/s Satyam Distributors. His goods were destroyed in heavy rains in 2009. In his complaint, Shivnani told the forum that he took an insurance of Rs 15 lakh for goods stored in a warehouse between May 26, 2009 and May 25, 2010. Shivnani said despite his attempts to shift the goods to dry area, heavy rains on October 4 and 5, 2009 destroyed a huge chunk of goods estimated to be worth Rs 11.74 lakh.
The complainant immediately informed the insurance company, which on October 6, sent their investigator Surendra Kumar Kalra to verify Shivnani's claims. Kalra, in his report on October 26, 2009, accepted goods were destroyed in the rains but valued the loss of goods at Rs 8.46 lakh and not Rs 11.44 lakh as demanded by Shivnani.
The company, however, refused to pay the claim to Shivnani citing the above technical point.
The forum, after going through the insurance papers, said the company was not justified in raising such technical grounds when their own investigator had verified and accepted Shivnani's claim after which they passed the order.
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thane/Dont-refuse-claim-on-technical-grounds-Consumer-forum/articleshow/34341364.cms
Comment:
The above contention of the Ld. Forum appears to be opposed to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company, wherein the Hon'ble court clearly stated "under the Insurance Act, the assistance of a surveyor should be taken but the insurer was not bound to accept his opinion. The insurer can depute another surveyor and accept the latter view. The court would interfere only if the rejection of the survey report is arbitrary or malafide."
Citing that the insurance company's defense to refuse claim on such technical grounds as unjust, the forum has directed the company to pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 and insurance of Rs 8.46 lakh at six per cent interest to Ajay Shivnani of M/s Satyam Distributors. His goods were destroyed in heavy rains in 2009. In his complaint, Shivnani told the forum that he took an insurance of Rs 15 lakh for goods stored in a warehouse between May 26, 2009 and May 25, 2010. Shivnani said despite his attempts to shift the goods to dry area, heavy rains on October 4 and 5, 2009 destroyed a huge chunk of goods estimated to be worth Rs 11.74 lakh.
The complainant immediately informed the insurance company, which on October 6, sent their investigator Surendra Kumar Kalra to verify Shivnani's claims. Kalra, in his report on October 26, 2009, accepted goods were destroyed in the rains but valued the loss of goods at Rs 8.46 lakh and not Rs 11.44 lakh as demanded by Shivnani.
The company, however, refused to pay the claim to Shivnani citing the above technical point.
The forum, after going through the insurance papers, said the company was not justified in raising such technical grounds when their own investigator had verified and accepted Shivnani's claim after which they passed the order.
Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thane/Dont-refuse-claim-on-technical-grounds-Consumer-forum/articleshow/34341364.cms
Comment:
The above contention of the Ld. Forum appears to be opposed to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company, wherein the Hon'ble court clearly stated "under the Insurance Act, the assistance of a surveyor should be taken but the insurer was not bound to accept his opinion. The insurer can depute another surveyor and accept the latter view. The court would interfere only if the rejection of the survey report is arbitrary or malafide."
Comments
Post a Comment