|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is one such case where the consumer had to seek the intervention of the consumer court to get the insured amount. The chain of events leading up to the claim and the grounds on which the insurer denied the claim, tells you a lot about the attitude of insurance companies. The whole story begins with the consumer, Sachin Bhardwaj, buying two policies in September 2004 - a Householders Policy and a Vyavasayi/ Adhikari Suraksha Kavach Policy, covering all household goods, including jewellery and other valuables. After due inspection, the insurance company issued the policies -the cover for jewellery and other valuables totalled Rs 2,68,000 Two months hence, when Sachin, a resident of Noida, was returning with his wife and child, from a wedding in Aligarh, his car stalled. Sachin then decided to put his wife and child in a bus so that they could go home without delay. Since they were carrying valuables such as jewellery, video camera and a digital camera, Sachin packed these in a suitcase, put it in the car and locked it before getting into a bus that was passing by to reach the nearest bus stop from where his wife and child could leave for Noida. On his return, he found that the car, which had stalled due to overheating of the engine, started without much trouble But a kilometer ahead, an ambassador jammed into his car from behind. . Even as he got out of the car to check the damage and talk to the driver, some men got out of it, got into his car and drove away. The ambassador too disappeared. Sachin then took a ride in someone else's car and went to the police station to lodge a complaint. Subsequently, the car was found abandoned somewhere, but the suitcase had disappeared. When Sachin asked the insurer to indemnify his loss, a surveyor was first appointed to assess the loss. After a detailed survey, he came up with the figure of Rs.1,49,342, but observed that the claim need not be paid as the insured had not taken adequate care in safeguarding the valuables. More than a year later, the insurance company rejected his claim, citing breach of policy condition number 3, holding that the policy holder should not have left the suitcase in the car while boarding the bus. "Moreover, you have failed to spell out the reasons for not carrying the bag while leaving the car", the insurance company said. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the insurance company to pay the complainant s 2,48,500 towards his claim, along with interest at 9 per cent per anum. The highest consumer court, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in response to the revision petition of the insurance company, pointed out that in the circumstances, the steps taken by Sachin were reasonable enough to protect the insured property. Besides, the suitcase was not stolen when the insured had locked the car and gone to drop his wife and child at the bus stop. It happened much later when the insured was also in the car. The Commission also disagreed with the insurance company that Sachin should not have got off the car to examine the damage and talk to the driver of the car that had rammed into his car, leaving the ignition key in the socket. It is impractical to contend that the insured should have first secured the windows, locked the car and then gone ahead to talk to the driver or inspect the damage, the Commission said. (In any case, even if he had done it, the miscreants who outnumbered him could well have snatched the key from him) It however differed with the lower consumer courts on the valuation of the loss and said Rs 1,79,400 along with 9 per cent interest would meet the ends of justice. It also awarded costs of Rs 10,000. So whenever you buy insurance, read the policy conditions and the exclusion clauses carefully and ensure that you do not give any scope to the insurance company to repudiate your claim on grounds of breach of policy conditions. If however, the insurer is found to be unreasonable, as in this case, then the consumer courts are there to protect your interest.
|
||
|
|
||
W