Twitter
Advertisement

Insurer must pay for keeping terms & conditions a secret

The insurance company rejected his claim for breach of terms and conditions (including delay in filing FIR)

Latest News
article-main
Rajkot resident had insured his truck with the Oriental Insurance Company
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a revision petition filed by an insurance company challenging an order of the state forum, which had asked it to pay an insured Rs 9 lakh towards the theft of his truck.

Pratap Rathod, a resident of Rajkot had insured his truck with the Oriental Insurance Company. On February 26, 2010, the insured truck was stolen and the insurance company was informed about the incident the next day. Rathod also went to the police to file an FIR but the cops asked him to wait for few days and eventually, registered the FIR on March 3, 2010.

The insurance company rejected his claim for breach of terms and conditions (including delay in filing FIR). The complainant challenged the rejection on the ground that he was kept in the dark about such terms and conditions. Rejection of claim on the grounds of violation of terms and condition, that he was not provided with in the first place, amounted to deficiency of service, he said.

The insurance company, while filing the revision petition said, Rathod was informed about the terms and conditions as is clear from the policy document. It further argued that the respondent never asked for a copy.

Rathod's lawyer pointed out that even in its arguments, nowhere did the company state that it had supplied the complainant a copy of the terms and conditions along with the policy.

He further argued that the policy itself consisted of only three pages and makes no mention of terms and conditions. Therefore, there was no reason for the respondent to be aware of the existence of such terms and conditions, and thus, had no reason to demand a copy of the same.

The commission, while dismissing the petition, observed that the company could not provide any proof that it had supplied the complainant a copy of the terms and conditions.

It also agreed with the Rathod's contention that the policy document also doesn't make any reference to any terms and conditions. It thus said the burden was on the insurance company to prove that the copy of the terms and conditions were duly supplied to the respondent.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement