Miscellaneous Policy (General) - Gbic.co.in

complaint is, therefore, not possible in absence of any decision. Moreover, as there havebeen number of cross references without any response from the Insurance Company, andthe complainant also refers to approaching alternative forum, I hereby decide not to passany Award on this complaint.Mumbai Ombudsman CentreCase No. GI-266 OF 2003 - 2004Shri Prem Prakash KhannaVs.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 17.11.2004Shri Prem Prakash Khanna, had taken a House Holders’ Insurance Policy to cover contentsunder Policy No.142000 / 48 / 0l / 05555 from ‘The New India Assurance CompanyLimited., Code 142000, Jeevan Seva, 2nd Floor, Santacruz, Mumbai, for the period19.12.2001 to 18.12.2002 for a Sum Insured of Rs. 2,17,000/-. Shri Prem Prakash Khanna,reported to The New India Assurance Company, by fax dated 24.6.2002 that on 23.6.2002 aburglary took place at the premises at Villa No.l, Row No.3, Vallabh Nagar, Borivli, and thematter had been reported at MHB Police Station Borivli, vide FIR No.121 dated 23.6.2002.The Company vide their letter dated 11th March, 2003 informed Shri Prem PrakashKhanna, that on scrutiny of the papers, it was observed that his house was locked andunoccupied for more than 120 days during the policy period, which is excluded from thescope of the policy, hence the claim cannot be admitted. Further by letter dated 24.4.2003,they drew his attention to the House Holders Insurance Clause as applicable to Section II,under the head Extension.Not satisfied with the response, Shri Pravin Khanna approached the Insurance Ombudsmanon 28.6.2003.. He further informed that the premises were cleaned regularly and thatsomeone or other of the family member visited the premises regulary and stayed for 1-2days during week end. This can be substantiated by Electricity bills, telephone bills etc.Parties to the dispute were called for oral deposition an October 17, 2003.The subject matter of Insurance being the household goods and contents, it isunimaginable that the users would not be there. A house or a flat is there for habitation andthe contents and household goods are to be used and consumed for which the inhabitantshave to stay. In fact this ensures stay of the users and the two are linked. The moment it isnot habitable or kept unused or locked, and if that is for long period, it should be intimatedas it may become uninsurable. The Operative Clause of this Policy under “ReasonableCare implicitly mentions this. Moreover, the most natural thing in a flat is to stay and use it,not staying in a flat is ‘uncommon’ and, therefore; has to be specifically mentioned whichwas not done while proposing the insurance or renewing the same or anytime during thecurrency of the policy. In this regard, the reference to 120 days can only be taken to meanthat upto 120 days period may be accepted not only in temporary removal case alone butthe spirit of the clause can be stretched further as a pervading one binding the entirecontract but for which it is meaningless to issue a Householders’ policy without thehouseholder residing therein. In the facts and circumstances, the contention of theCompany, New India, that the claim is not payable is sustainable and the complaint of theInsured to pay for loss / damage to the contents under Policy No.142000 / 48 / 01 / 05555for the period 19.12.2001 to 18.12.2002 is not tenable.Mumbai Ombudsman CentreCase No. GI-630 OF 2003 - 2004Shri Bahadur B. Dangor(House Holder Policy)Vs.The National Insurance Company Limited.