Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 40

CONSUMER
A. C. Raval, Presiding Member, P. R. Shah, Member
Pratik J. Parmar – Appellant
Versus
Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. K. Dudhiya
For the Respondents: K. S. Pathak

An insurance contract is governed strictly by its written terms; thus, an insurer is not liable for risks not explicitly covered in the policy schedule, especially where no premium was paid for the disputed peril and electronic evidence was not proved in accordance with statutory mandates.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Policy - Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy - Theft and Burglary cover - Claim repudiation - Failure to prove payment of premium for disputed perils - Burden of proof - The court held that insurance liability is strictly governed by the written terms and conditions of the policy contract. Courts cannot rewrite the contract or enlarge the scope of coverage where no premium for such specific risk was paid. (Paras 7.8)

(B) Evidence - Electronic records - Admissibility under S. 65B of Evidence Act - Requirement of certificate - Authenticity of recordings - The court clarified that telephonic recordings produced as electronic evidence are inadmissible if they do not comply with the mandatory certification requirements under the Evidence Act. (Paras 6.1, 7.4)

Facts of the case:
The complainant, a doctor, obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy. Following a burglary at his premises, the insurer rejected the claim on the grounds that the policy did not cover theft or burglary. The complainant alleged that he had orally requested coverage for theft and burglary, citing a telephonic conversation with an insurance officer, but the District Commission dismissed his complaint.

Findings of Court:
The Appellate Commission found that the policy schedule clearly defined the covered perils and excluded burglary/theft. As the complainant was an educated professional who had accepted the policy renewal without protest during the free look period, he could not claim coverage for risks for which no premium was paid.

Issues: Whether the insurer is liable for theft/burglary losses under a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy when the policy schedule does not specifically cover such perils or reflect premium payment for them.

Ratio Decidendi: Insurance contracts are governed by the written policy documents. Oral assertions or unverified electronic recordings, which fail to meet statutory requirements of the law of evidence, cannot override the written terms of a concluded insurance contract.

Result: Appeal dismissed; Impugned order confirmed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and origin of the insurance dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. summary of opposing contentions regarding policy coverage and evidence admissibility. (Para 5 , 6)

APPEARANCE:

Mr. M. K. Dudhiya, Ld. Adv. for the Appellant/Orig. Complainant

Ms. K. S. Pathak, Ld. Adv. for the Respondents/Orig. Opponents

ORDER BY MS. A. C. RAVAL, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The present appeal is filed by the Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Valsad in Consumer Protection Case No. 114 of 2018.

2. When the matter was called out Ld. Advocate Mr. M. K. Dudhiya for the Appellant and Ld. Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak for the Respondents remained present.

3. The Appellant is Original Complainant and Respondent is the Original Opponent in the Complaint before the Ld. District Commission and for the sake of convenience parties will be addressed with the same nomenclature.

FACTS

It is the case of the complainant that the complainant and his wife are doctors by profession and are running dental and cardiac clinic. In order to secure the property of the clinic, they decided to obtain an insurance policy. It is the case of the complainant that one officer of the opponent insurance company, namely Mr. Meenakumar Pillai, suggested that the complainant should take an insurance policy for the clinic from the opponent insurance company. Relying upon the said officer, Mr. Meenakumar Pillai, the complainant obtained an insurance policy from the opponent insurance company bearing Policy No. 10012/11/16/000136 for the period from 14.03.2016 to 13.03.2017 for the sum insured of Rs.1,02,11,000/-. The said policy was thereafter renewed for the period from 14.03.2017 to 13.03.2018 bearing Policy No.10012/11/17/000483 for the same sum insured amount. It is further the case of the complainant that during the subsistence of the policy period, theft and burglary took place in the clinic on 22.11.2017 at about 8:00 p.m. The complainant informed the opponent insurance company on its toll-free number on 23.11.2017 and was advised to lodge FIR. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the FIR before the concerned police station regarding the theft and burglary completed in the clinic premises. Thereafter, the complainant lodged his insurance claim before the opponent insurance company. However, the said claim came to be rejected by the opponent insurance company vide email communication dated 15.02.2018. The claim was rejected on the ground that theft and burglary were not covered under the policy perils and that the policy in question was a "Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy". According to the complainant, after rejection of the claim, the complainant contacted the officer Mr. Meenakumar Pillai through whom the policy was obtained and had a telephonic conversation with him on 26.12.2017. It is alleged that during the said conversation, the officer of the opponent insurance company admitted that the complainant had requested a policy covering theft and burglary but that due to misunderstanding regarding the perils of the policy, the same was not included. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, the complainant preferred Consumer Complaint No.114 of 2018 before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Valsad. The learned District Commission, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 13.10.2020. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the said order, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT

The learned advocate appearing for the appellant-original complainant argued that the order passed by the learned District Commission is based on conjectures and surmises and is contrary to the settled principles of law and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further argued that the learned District Commission failed to consid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 40

CONSUMERA. C. Raval, Presiding Member, P. R. Shah, MemberPratik J. Parmar – AppellantVersusManager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited – RespondentAPPEAL NO. 99 OF 2021

An insurance contract is governed strictly by its written terms; thus, an insurer is not liable for risks not explicitly covered in the policy schedule, especially where no premium was paid for the disputed peril and electronic evidence was not proved in accordance with statutory mandates.

CONSUMER
A. C. Raval, Presiding Member, P. R. Shah, Member
Pratik J. Parmar – Appellant
Versus
Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2021