ORDER

This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 07.04.2015 of the State Commission in complaint no. 03 of 2014.

2. Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, learned senior counsel makes submissions on behalf of the appellants (the ‘complainants’).

Mr. D. Varadarajan, learned counsel makes submissions on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to no. 3 (the ‘insurance co.’)

Mr. Prabhat Kr. Chaurasia, learned counsel makes submissions on behalf of the respondents no. 4 and no. 5 (the ‘bank’).

3. The matter relates to repudiation of an insurance claim.

Briefly, the complainants had taken insurance for a sum of Rs. 50 lakh (for Diamond Rs. 35 lakh + for Gold Rs. 15 lakh). The bank had provided cash credit limit to the complainants against hypothecation of stock. As such the insurance had been taken through the bank. It was first taken for one year on 05.03.2010 at premium of Rs. 35008/-, then for another year at premium of Rs. 10786/- and then again for another year i.e. 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013 at premium of Rs. 24222/-. The premium was debited to the complainants’ account by the bank and remitted to the insurance co. In the night of 14/15.12.2012 i.e. when the policy had been taken for the third year an incident of burglary occurred in the insured premises. An F.I.R. was lodged with the police. The insurance co. was intimated. The complainants submitted a claim of Rs. 70.92 lakh i.e. more than the sum assured. A surveyor was appointed by the insurance co. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 30.59 lakh i.e. less than the claimed amount. It also pointed out that there was violation of clause 13 of the policy. The relevant extract of the surveyor’s report is reproduced below for reference:

Present claim has occurred under Clause 6 (Burglary) of Section I of Jewellers Block Insurance Policy. As stated earlier, insured suffered loss of Jewelleries from its’ display, window, display counter and table drawer and no loss occurred from its’ safe. Now; attention of insurer is invited to the exclusion under clause 13 of the Policy; which states “Loss and/or damage to property insured under section I whilst in display windows at night and/or whilst kept out of safe after business hours.”

The insurance co. repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 28.06.2013 on ground that clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the policy had been violated.

Vide its impugned Order of 07.04.2018 the State Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that the claim had been rightly repudiated by the insurance co.

4. Learned senior counsel for the complainants submits that the terms and conditions of the policy including clause 13 had not been communicated to the complainants. In this regard he draws attention to paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit dated 18.01.2017 filed by the insurance co. during the course of the appellate proceedings before this Commission. The same are being reproduced below for reference:—

6. I state that in the present case, the business was generated through the Bancassurance Channel, i.e. sourced through the bank. In cases where policy is issued through Bancassurance Channel, the policy along with terms and conditions are dispatched to the Bank as the same is obtained to protect the loans and advances.

7. I further state that in the present case the relevant insurance policy along with the applicable terms and conditions was dispatched to the Indian Overseas Bank at the relevant time, i.e. on 05.04.2011. Copy of the Courier Receipt dated 05.04.2011 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-A.

Submission is that though the policy along with its terms and conditions was supplied by the insurance co. to the bank but the bank in turn did not supply the same to the complainants.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance co. submits that in the normal course of business two copies of the policy along with its terms and conditions are supplied to the bank through which the insurance has been taken. While