consumers beware!
Theft of heirloom jewellery & insurance
Pushpa Girimaji

Last year, for a wedding in the family, we had brought from the safe deposit locker, some jewellery to wear. It would have gone back to the locker the very next day. There was a sudden death in a friend's house and we all had to rush there. When we returned in the evening, we found that our house had been burgled and the jewellery stolen. Since many of them were heirlooms, the loss was immense. We had taken an insurance policy for such an eventuality. However, the insurance company is coming up with all kinds of excuses and not paying. They are, for example, asking for cash receipts, the address of the shop from where we bought the jewellery, the valuation report, etc. From where can one obtain receipts for heirloom jewellery that has been passed on for generations? At the time of issuing the policy, they did not even bother to see the jewellery and accepted our list and evaluation. Now they are singing a different tune. What do we do?

If there are no violations of the policy conditions and if you have taken reasonable care to safeguard the jewellery in your possession, the insurance company cannot refute your claim. Before issuing the policy, the insurance company should have got them evaluated or got you to get their evaluation done by a jeweller. Having failed to do that, they cannot raise objections or come up with excuses to avoid indemnifying your loss.

Please complain to the grievances cell of the insurance company and if there is no positive response, you can complain to the insurance regulator, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (website: www.irda.gov.in ). You can also lodge a complaint with the Insurance Ombudsman. You can get the contact details of the Ombudsman from the IRDA website.

Can you quote a couple of decided cases of the Ombudsman in cases such as mine?

Here are two such cases where the Insurance Ombudsmen intervened to ensure that the policy holder got the insured amount - both cases pertain to loss of jewellery. In Shri Sadhan Chakraborty vs The New India Assurance Company ltd ( May 23, 2007), for example, the insurance company did not send a surveyor/investigator for three months after the theft of jewellery from the house. And then, after the grills and the latch had been repaired by the policy holder, complained that there were no signs of "violent and forcible entry" and so the claim had to be rejected. ! The Kolkata Ombudsman held that this argument was unacceptable.

Similarly, in. Shri S.N.Bansal vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited (decided on March 10, 2008) Mr Bansal took the jewellery to deposit in the safe deposit locker . Since the parking lot near the bank was full, he decided to return after seeing his doctor, with whom he had an appointment. In order to ensure the safety of the jewellery, he had hidden it underneath the car seat. However, to his utter shock, when he returned after seeing the doctor, he found his car itself missing!

On the refusal of the insurance company to pay, he sought the help of the Ombudsman in Delhi. Even here, the insurance company argued that it would indemnify the loss of the car, but not the jewellery, as he had not taken "due care and caution" to secure the jewellery, as required under the policy. The Ombudsman however dismissed the contention. The jewellery was hidden under the seat, the car was locked and parked in the hospital's parking bay, he pointed out and directed the insurer to pay.

HOME