Appellant/complainant cooperative society is in the business of banking and giving loans.  It obtained a Group Personal Accident Policy covering the risk of Rs.7,14,000/-.  During the validity of the said policy, proprietor of M/s Rhythem Food Products met with an accidental death, to whom a loan of Rs.25 lakh had been advanced by Amravati Branch of the appellant.  Appellant lodged a claim with the respondent insurance company which was repudiated by letter dated 16.3.2007 on the ground that the claim was received by the insurance company after 424 days and therefore it was in contravention of the policy condition.  Being aggrieved, appellant filed the complaint after serving due notice.  State Commission dismissed the complaint by observing thus :

“Insurance is a contract entered into between parties and the conditions of the contract are binding on both the parties.  However, it is not disputed that the claim was lodged by the complainant after one year and two months from the date of occurrence of claim i.e. accidental death of Shri Ayush Jaiswal, proprietor of M/s Rhythem Food Products.  As the condition mentions that the limitation period is of 90 days, so, undisputedly, there was delay of about 424 days, but there is no satisfactory explanation for the said delay.”

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Delay in informing the respondent deprived the respondent of an opportunity to verify about the accidental death as well as fixing the responsibility or making an enquiry as to who was responsible for causing the death.  Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha [Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010] has held as under :

“Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager.  In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation.  Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle.  It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident.  In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.  On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right  to  get  an  inquiry  conducted  into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same.  Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis.  In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.”

        Dismissed.