Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
Dr. Kishor Hasanand Jeswani —Petitioner
versus
Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No.2692 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 15/03/2016 in Appeal No. 493/2011 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 22.1.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
It clearly indicates the act of opposite party was in vague and confusing one; and just harassment to the consumers.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Insurance – deceased insured under Group Janta Personal Accident Policy from the OP for Rs.3,00,000/- complainant, Dr. Kishore Jeswani who was a nominee in the policy died- OP the claim policy in question stood cancelled – OP had collected the huge premium but put a condition that every policy holder should approach the OP for refund, which was not reasonable - State Commission is set - revision petition is allowed
Held: In my view, the complainant was kept in the dark. It was the duty of the insurance company to intimate the insured person about the cancellation. The insurance company had not refunded the remaining premium of insurance.
The learned counsel for the OP-insurance company relied upon the decision of this Commission in Ashok Jain Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2012) CPJ 150 NC in which it was held as under:
“It is thus clear that in cancelling the insurance policy in question, the insurance company needed to write to “the insured” and not to “the insured person”. Perusal of the Certificate of Insurance shows that the State Bank of India Officers Association, Chandigarh Circle was recorded as the “Insured”, whereas, Adesh Kumar Jain was recorded as the “Insured Person”. In other words, for cancellation of the policy it was sufficient for the Insurance Company to send notice only to the “insured”, viz., the State Bank of India Officers Association, Chandigarh Circle. It is not in dispute that this was done by the Insurance Company. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not valid and cannot be accepted.”
The counsel further relied on another case Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. & Anr., I (2012) CPJ 152 NC it was held that Public notice of cancellation was given through newspapers, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the complainants.
The deceased-insured was a doctor, who unfortunately died in road accident. The insured was a member of Nishant Pat Sanstha, which gave a Public notice and alerted its members about the unilateral cancellation of the policy by the OP. Therefore, the complainant has not submitted original insurance certificate. In the instant case, the complainant was not directly informed by OP about the cancellation of the policy. It is also not clear why each and every policy holder who approach insurance company along with original insurance certificate. It is surprising that, OP had collected the huge premium from Nishant Pat Sanstha, but put a condition that every policy holder should approach the OP for refund. It was unreasonable demand of OP. Under such circumstances the opposite party-insurance company should have refunded the entire remaining premium of insurance to the Nishant Pat Sanstha. Thus, it clearly indicates the act of opposite party was in vague and confusing one; and just harassment to the consumers. Therefore, the repudiation was unjustified.
On the basis of the foregoing discussion the order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: Revision petition is allowed.
1. Dr. Kaushalya Jeswani (since deceased) was insured under Group Janta Personal Accident Policy from the OP, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 16-02-1999 till 15-02-2011 for insured sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The policy was taken by Nishant Sahakari Gramin Pat Purvatha Sanstha, Akola (in short, “Nishant Pat Sanstha”) for its members. The complainant, Dr. Kishore Jeswani was a nominee in the said policy. On 27-03-2010, Dr. Kaushalya unfortunately met with a road accident and died. The nominee i.e. the complainant submitted the claim with the OP, but it was repudiated on the ground that the insurance policy concerned was cancelled w.e.f.24-09-2005 by publishing news in daily local newspaper “Deshonnati” dated 05-09-2005. Therefore, insurance claim could not have been lodged with the OP. Being aggrieved the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Akola, Maharashtra.
2. The complaint was resisted by the OP. According to OP the claim was repudiated on the ground that the said policy was cancelled w.e.f. 24-09-2005 by proper publication in the local newspaper on 05-09-2005. Therefore, the policy in question stood cancelled. The accident had occurred after long time of the cancellation, therefore, policy was not operational on the date of accident.
3. The District Forum on the basis of pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and asked the OP to take decision with respect of claim under policy upto 15-01-2012. Being aggrieved, the insurance company filed the appeal before the State Commission, Maharashtra which was allowed and the complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission the complainant filed this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there is delay of 12 days in filing this revision petition. The short delay is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay. The counsel further submitted that the OP has cancelled the policy without any intimation to the complainant. The counsel relied upon the decision of coordinate bench of this Commission in the cases National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harcharan Singh & Ors., 2016(2) CPJ 467 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Manish Abhay Bedmutha & Anr., IV (2003) CPJ 303(NC) in which similar facts are involved.
5. The arguments on behalf of OP respondent are, that the OP had published a public notice in ‘Deshonnati’, Marathi newspaper i.e. local language that the said policy was cancelled w.e.f.24-09-2005. Thus, there was no policy in existence on the date of accident, therefore, repudiation was justified.
6. Perused the evidence on record and the public notice issued by the OP company on 05-09-2005. It is reproduced as below:
“United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Be it known to the all concerned public that under the rights received as per condition No.5 (five) of the Policy, the Janata Accident Policy No.161700/47/51/1125/98-99 taken by United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Akola through (Nishant Sahakari Gramin Pat Purvatha Sanstha, Akola) is being cancelled from date 24-09-2005. Therefore, it is informed to all policy holders to collect the remaining premium of insurance by submitting the Original Certificate of Policy. The same has also been informed to the Nishant Sahakari Gramin Pat Purvatha Sanstha, Akola.
The said Insurance Policy is cancelled with effect from 24-09-2005. Any claim of anybody shall not be payable upon the said Policy from date 24-09-2005 and thereafter.”
7. In response to the said notice, the Nishant Pat Sanstha, Akola issued another public notice on 10-09-2005 to caution its members about the intention of the insurance company. The public notice is reproduced as below:
“Nishant Sahakari Gramin Pat Purvatha Sanstha, Akola
Be it known to the all concerned pu
