Miscellaneous Policy (General) - Gbic.co.in

Vs.United India Insurance Co.Ltd.Award Dated 23.02.2005The complainant under Rule No. 12(1)(b) read with Rule 13 of RPG Rule 1998 arose as aconsequences of repudiation of a claim preferred by the Complainant against transit-lossceramic capacitors on the way from Kuttipuram (Kerala) to Allahabad. The insurance Co.had rejected the claim on the plea that the consignments were received by the consigneeintact and the shortage was found only in two cartons out of a total of 5 cartons dispatched.However, the Postal department had issued receipts and for the registered parcels and thecharges collected per carton was Rs. 368/- each corresponding to the declared weight of11 to 11.5 Kgs. Besides, the consignee had called. The Insurance Company at Allahabadas two cartons weighed less and they were opened only in the presence of the insuranceSurveyor. Since the Consignor was able to produce proof to the point that they had sentthe cartons by registered post and as the consignee had disputed parcels only in thepresence of the insurance surveyor, the possibility was that there was some skillful midwaypilferage, which was covered by insurance. Considering the circumstances of the case, thecomplainant was allowed and the insurer was directed to make good the loss of Rs.48,588/- to the consignor.Kochi Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO/KCH/GI/11-011-128/2004 - 05Ms. Helni VargheseVs.Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.Award Dated 15.03.2005The complainant under Rule No. 12(1)(b) read with Rule 13 of RPG Rule 1998 is in relationto repudiation of an accident claim by the insurer under a policy styled “Pravasi BharathiyaBima Yojana”. The insured as per the complainant had taken out the policy and left forSaudi Arabia, where, at his work place, he met with an accident and died on 13.6.2004.The policy was a special privilege policy issued by the insurer only for the benefit of thosewho needed Emigration check as per the passport and did not cover those who were notrequired to undergo the Emigration clearance. In the case of the insured in the presentcase, although he was required to comply with the emigration formalities earlier,subsequently from 1994 he was in the ECNR category because of confirmed VISA statues.However, in the proposal, he had declared that emigration check was require in his caseand the policy was caused to be issued. The complainant pointed out that the travel agenthad not spelt out the conditions and that her husband had only signed the form. However,in view of the wrong declaration, while the repudiation was upheld, considering theimpecunious situation of the complainant, an ex-gratia of Rs.20,000/- (10% of the sum assured) was allowed and the complaint was disposed of.Mumbai Ombudsman CentreCase No. GI-149 of 2003-2004Shri Nandan V. PatilVs.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.Award Dated 05.10.2004M / s Prathmesh Medical & General Stores which was covered under the Shopkeeper’sInsurance policy of Oriental Insurance Company, Vasai Branch Office under Borivali D.O.against the policy No.124302 / 48 / 2003 / 00021 for the period from 5.4.2002 to 4.4.2003had lodged a claim with ‘Oriental’ after some delay for reimbursement of their losses and