BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.: A/19/253 Mr.Bhupendra K.Dalaland And Dhun Bhupendra Dalal

183, Mehr Dad, Cuffe Parade,Mumbai-400 005. ... Complainant Versus United India Insurance Co.. Ltd.

Do 16, Vulcan Insurance Building, 6th Floor, 7 Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020. ... Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint No.: A/19/905 United India Insurance Co.. Ltd.

Do 16, Vulcan Insurance Building, 6th Floor, 7 Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020. ... Complainant Versus Mr.Bhupendra K.Dalaland And Dhun Bhupendra Dalal

183, Mehr Dad, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. ... Opposite Parties BEFORE :

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. P. Tavade, President Hon'ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member Appearance:

For the Complainant : Adv. Sarika Patel For the Opposite Parties: Adv. Varsha Chavan COMMON JUDGMENT (30/09/2024)

Per: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. P. Tavade, President

1. Both these Appeals are arising out of order passed by the South Mumbai District Forum in CC/2017/48 dated 28/01/2019. The first appeal bearing No.

A/19/253 is preferred by the Original Complainants whereas the appeal bearing no. A/19/905 is preferred by the Original Opponent. Both these appeals are heard together therefore, we are deciding both these appeals by this common Judgment.

2. The parties of both these appeals shall be called and referred to as per their status in the original complaint.

3. Facts giving rise to the present complaint are as under-

The Complainants had purchased Overseas Medical Insurance Policies (OMP) No.0216002615/991419640, 991419639. It was contended by the Complainants that the said above policies had also covered damages due to ‘Miss Connection’ and ‘Trip Delay,’ mentioned in clause ‘M’ and ‘N’ of the policy. It was contended that the Complainants travelled on 18/07/2016 and returned on 21/08/2016 i.e within the coverage of the policy. The Complainants had booked their air ticket from Turkish Airlines. It was contended that due to political unrest in Turkey the said Airlines vide official statement dated 17/07/2016 cancelled the flight up to 20/07/2016 and the said event occurred within the time frame of the policy. It was contended that the cancellation of flight occurred on Saturday and next day was Sunday. Most of the establishments were closed. The Complainant had to attend the first wedding ceremony of their grandson which was to be held on Sunday night hence, the cancellation of the flight was catastrophe as no grandparents wants to miss the first wedding with its connected functions. The Complainant somehow could manage 2 seats on Emirates Airlines obviously at the higher rate due to the last movement rush of booking. It was contended by the Complainants that fortunately they could manage full refund from the Turkish Airlines and the Complainants travel agent gave unsolicited rebate of Rs.5,000/- on each ticket on sympathetic ground. It was contended by the Complainants that they incurred a net loss of Rs.2,47,540/- on two flight tickets. The Complainant had submitted claim to the Insurance Company on 10/09/2016, which was rejected by the letter dated 25/11/2016 after 2½ months from its submission. The Complainant claim was rejected on the ground that the Complainants had not missed connection or the trip was not delayed. It was contended that the Opponent relied on the clause ‘M’ and ‘N’ of the policy. It was contended that the said clauses were against the fair policy. The claim of Complainant was repudiated by the Opponent after 2 and half month after the submission of the claim. It was contended that the clause ‘M’ specifically mentioned causes of Miss Connection which include cancellation of service or departure and broadly due to any reason. It was contended that Complainants missed the journey because of cancellation of Turkish Airlines flight and the Complainants have to take alternative recourse and have to spend extra cost for which the Complainant seeks compensation from the Insurance