|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes an innocent action, taken in good faith, could lead to unfortunate and complicated consequences. That is exactly what happened with the Sharmas. On reaching Saibaba Mandir in Najafgarh in Delhi, it occurred to them that it may not be safe to wear jewellery. So, in an effort to safeguard the gold ornaments that they had worn, they decided to remove put them in a pouch, and keep it in the glove compartment of their car. Once the car is locked, the precious ornaments would be safe, they thought. They were obviously wrong because when they returned after 20 minutes, they found the car door open and the jewellery packet gone. But there was a silver lining in that misfortune that they suffered. That was the householder’s insurance policy that they had taken some months ago, and that ensured coverage for the jewellery that they owned, too. So thinking that all was not lost, they filed a claim with the insurance company, which, however, repudiated the claim. In response to the couple’s complaint before the consumer court, the insurance company put forward several arguments in its defence. But the main allegation of the insurance company was that the couple had taken out the jewellery in full public view, and kept it in the car. Worse, the car had been parked in an unmanned and unattended parking lot. Thus, the policyholder had failed to take "reasonable care" expected in safeguarding the insured jewellery, thereby violating the policy condition. The insurer, therefore, was not liable to indemnify the loss. While the district forum accepted these contentions and dismissed the complaint, the state commission, after a detailed look at the facts of the case, held the insurance company liable. It, therefore, directed the company to indemnify the loss and pay the insured Rs 1,29,494, which was the loss assessed by the surveyor. It also awarded in addition Rs 25,000 as compensation for the mental agony undergone by the policyholder, and Rs 5,000 towards cost of litigation. The national consumer disputes redressal commission, in response to the insurance company’s appeal, said it found no cause to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the state commission. However, it felt that the insurer need not pay the additional Rs 25,000 awarded as compensation (United India Insurance vs Praveen Sharma, RP No 4755 of 2008, decided on May 11, 2010). I always remember this advertisement of a householder’s policy that comes on the television, wherein the family returns from an outing to find their house robbed. They are, of course, not worried because they have an insurance policy to cover such a loss. The advertisement is so reassuring, but the reality is that when the unexpected happens, when a house is burgled or the jewellery stolen, getting the insured amount from an insurance company is not easy. At every stage, the insurer tries to find an excuse not to pay. In this case, for example, the insurer argued that the consumers had gone to the police station and not called the police control room van (PCR). Now how many people would think of calling a PCR? Then there are exclusion clauses meant to help the insurer. For example, in a householder’s policy, the insurer will not pay if there is even a slight suspicion of involvement of an employee, or a house help in the burglary (Either direct or indirect involvement of domestic staff). Some policies say that the insurer is not liable to pay if the house is left unoccupied for more than seven days. Similarly, the insurer will not pay if the insured goods are not properly safeguarded. So, whenever you choose a policy to protect your household goods, read the policy document carefully, particularly the exclusion clauses. Compare policies and choose what is best suited to your needs. More important, always check the procedure that is expected of you in case of an eventuality like theft or burglary. There are many cases
where the insurance company has not paid because the police complaint
was lodged late, or the claim was not made on time. Fulfil your part
of the contract, and despite that, if the insurance company fails to
do what is expected of it, you have courts to fall back on.
|
|||
|
|
|||
