|
| Madras High Court raps Insurance Company |
|
| S N Bansal vs Orientl Insurance Company Ltd March 10,2008 |
|
| Rakesh Bansal was to deposit jewelllery in his bank locker. When he found the parking lot at the bank full, he decided to visit a doctor first. The jewellery he perhaps thought, was safe under neat his seat. However, when he returned, he found his car itself missing. He was fortunate to have an insurance covers for his vehicle and householder’s policy for the jewellery. Or so he thought till the insurance company repudiated his claim. After he lodged a complaint with the insurance ombudsman in Delhi, the company argued that it would indemnify the loss of the car but not the jewellery, as he had not taken: due care and caution” as required under the policy. |
|
| The ombudsman however dismissed the contention and directed the insurer to pay the claim amount. |
|
| Sadhan Chakra borty Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd (May 23, 2007) |
|
| In this case the insurance company did not send a surveyor/ Investigator for three months after the theft of jewellery was reported by the client .As the time had passed the client got grills and the latch fixed. After a gap of 3 months when the surveyor went for visit he reported that there were no signs of “violent and forcible entry” and hence rejected the claim. The ombudsman held that this argument of insurance company was unacceptable. The company was instructed to pay. |
|
| Madras High Court raps Insurance Company |
|
| In a knuckle jerking judgment, recently Madras High Court has admonished a PSU in a MACT appeal. Here is part reproduction of what appeared in Press |
|
| “Making a mockery of the national litigation policy, which aims to bring down new cases and appeals by the government, a public sector insurance company has filed an appeal against an accident compensation of ` 6,000. Worse, it has been fighting the case for the past eight years, and has incurred `.6,100/- as case expenditure alone. Rapping the National Insurance Company Limited for the thoughtless action, Justice K Chandru of the Madras high court has dismissed its revision petition, describing it as abuse of the process of law. |
|
| The matter relates to a road accident on June 24, 2001, when a van met with an accident injuring three persons near Sevattipatti in Dharmapuri district. After taking treatment, the injured made claims and they were examined by the claims tribunal. In March 2002, the tribunal ordered `.6,000/- each to the claimants. The insurance company challenged the award in the high court, that too after a delay of 1,331 days. |
|
| Dismissing the company's petition on Thursday last, the judge quoted extensively from Union law minister M Veerappa Moily's statements decrying compulsive appeals and litigation for the sake of litigating. "Today, in the field of insurance, where there are private operators are also, a public sector insurer must think twice before venturing into a litigation and must consciously make a cost-benefit analysis. They should not end up being penny-wise pound-foolish," Justice Chandru observed.” |
|
| Whilst driving a judgment admonishing Insurer, the Hon’ble Judge observed that there was no explicable reason for the delay in filing appeal and also pointed out to the provision of appeals which prohibited appeals when amount is less than Rs.10000/- |
|
| It would be unfair to make any comment without knowing full facts of the case; yet the amount involved does not make it a fit case for appeal, even if any substantial point of law had been involved. From the little information available, this appears to be a petition filed by persons travelling in a goods carrier after tipping off the driver of the van. Obviously, the Goods carrier is not intended for passenger traffic and the Insurers should not be fastened with liability where none exists. |
|
