Miscellaneous Policy (General) - Gbic.co.in

Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. GIC / OIC / 1 / 141Mr. Iqbal ParvezVs.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 13.12.2004Claim under Marine Transit Policy. There was a short delivery of 4 Packets of goodsdestined to Noida. Complainant sought for exemption from personal appearanceDocuments submitted by both the parties were enough to decide the case and hence, it isconsidered not necessary to call either of the parties of hearing. It is observed that thesubject Policy was for Marine Cargo - Inland Transit - Cover Type “B” As the Coverextended was Type - B, the liability for such loss does not vest on the Respondent, but if itwas Type - A, it will cover all Risks. The possibility of erroneous typing on the phase ofCover did not rule out. Therefore, the issue was examined on Rate of Premium charged. Itis observed that the Premium was charged @ 1 % on the declared value of the goods.Complainant quoted an identical case of Policy issued by the Respondent to one Mr. K. L.Jagatia, wherein the destination, Transporter, Premium charged @ 1 %, date of loadingwere all same and the said Policy was issued under Cover Type - A. Respondent could notindicate the reason for denial of Type - A Policy to the Complainant while Charging thesame Premium Rate. Further the Respondent had appointed Survey or and if the Cover wasType - B, why the survey was conducted as the Claim was not admissible because it beinga Type - B Cover. Opined that it may be a printing error and benefit of doubt casts in favourof the Complainant. Respondent to pay Rs. 12,200/- (not disputed by the Respondent)alongwith refund of Rs. 1,272/- paid to Surveyor by the Complainant.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. 11-005-0175Dr. Falguni MehtaVs.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 13.12.2004Complainant, while taking a House Holder’s Policy, submitted a list of 12 Items to becovered under the Policy, including her Mobile Phone. Her Mobile phone was stolen.Respondent while repudiating the Claim, stated that Mobile Phone being covered underSection 1-B & 2, the claim is not payable as it was stolen from outside the House. Thepoint taken for determination is that whether the Mobile Phone was covered under theaforesaid Sections. It is observed from the File of the Respondent presented duringHearing that there were so many infirmities. Even the Proposal Form was neither filled-upand signed by the Complainant - it was done by someone. The Proposal Form did notcontain any entry under Section-3. In the meantime Policy schedule issued by theRespondent contained columns filled up against Section-3. Complainant submitted that shewas not aware of any such bifurcation of risk. This Forum asked the Respondent duringHearing to segregate which particular item from the list of 12 items submitted by theComplainant at the Proposal stage is covered under Section-3 of the Policy Schedule, theycould not identify any of the items. Held that the Complainant’s contention that sheintended to include the Mobile Phone under Section- 3 is to be accepted. Respondent topay Rs. 4500/- net to the Complainant.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. GIC / NIA / 1 / 247Mr. J. B. ParmarVs.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.