CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.351/2005
LATE MR. KARAN SINGH
S/O LATE CHOUDHARY SUNEHERE
…………. COMPLAINANT
(THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS)
MR. KANWAR SINGH S/O COMPLAINANT
R/O WZ-557, NARAINA VIHAR, DELHI-110028
Vs.
M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
8TH FLOOR, BERJANA HOUSE,
NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 06.07.2017
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
It is not in dispute that the car of complainant was duly insured with OP for the period 31.01.02 to 30.01.03 for IDV of Rs.4,50,000/-.
The case of complainant is that at the time of taking the policy, complainant has duly informed Sh. R.K. Sharma, agent of OP, that he was not holding earlier insurance for the period ending 30.01.02 and the agent assured complainant to waive off the earlier amount and un-insured period and the signature of complainant obtained on blank paper. Finally an insurance policy and a certificate was issued to complainant. The aforesaid vehicle was stolen from outside the house of complainant and an FIR 77/02 dated 26.03.02 was lodged at PS Naraina and police finally sent untraced report. Complainant lodged a claim in respect of the vehicle but the claim was repudiated on the ground that complainant has made false declaration regarding previous insurance policy. It is further stated that against the repudiation of this claim, complainant also approached the office of the Obdusman of the Insurance Company vide its representation dated 11.12.02 however his claim was turned down by the Ld. Insurance Obdusman vide order dated 20.10.03. It is stated that repudiation of the claim was unjustified. Accordingly this complaint was filed.
During the pendency of the claim, claimant died and an application was moved by Mr. Kanwar Singh son of complainant for brining LRs on record. The LRs of deceased complainant are widow, son and daughter. The widow and daughter deceased complainant have given NOC, accordingly name of Mr. Kanwar Singh was brought on record as LR of deceased complainant vide order dated 06.05.10.
OP in reply took the plea that the claim was repudiated on the ground of false declaration to the effect that the vehicle was duly insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period 31.01.01 to 30.01.02 vide policy No.165177. Later on it was found that this car was not insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and in fact the said cover note was issued on 17.01.01 to M/s General Motors covering their new Opel Astra car for the period 17.01.01 to 16.01.02. Since complainant has obtained NCB of 25% in respect of the car by making false declaration hence the claim was repudiated. The claimant took the matter before the Ld. Hon’ble Insurance Ombudsman and Ld. Insurance Ombudsman after hearing both the parties, passed the following order on 20.10.03:-
“After hearing both the parties and after careful consideration of the facts of the case, I am of the view that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands. His claim in respect of the theft of his vehicle has been repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that he had made a false declaration regarding previous insurance of the vehicle and regarding claims under the previous insurance policy. As a matter of fact, there was no previous insurance policy at all and the declaration made by the complainant was false and fraudulent from beginning to end. The grounds on which the claim has been repudiated by the insurance company are stated in their letter dated December 10, 2002 addressed to the complainant. I endorse those grounds and uphold the sanction taken by the insurance company in repudiating the claim. In the result, therefore, I dismiss the complaint.”
It is stated that in view of the order of Ld. Insurance Obdusman the present complaint is not maintainable as this Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any orders.
We have gone through the records carefully.
It is significant to note that proposal form was signed by the complainant. Complainant was an educated person and he was an army officer. In the proposal form it is specifically stated that the vehicle in question was duly insured with United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and that insurance expired on 30.01.02. Later on it was found that the said policy was fake. The contention of complainant that the agent of OP obtained his signature on blank and unfilled papers and complainant has never disclosed to the agent about the earlier policy, the same is without force as complainant was an educated person and was an army officer. The details of the policy are mentioned in the proposal form which itself show that the particulars were provided to complainant. Not only that complainant has given declaration to the effect that he has not claimed any amount in respect of the previous policy and that declaration is duly signed by complainant. On the basis of that declaration, the policy was issued and it is an admitted fact that complainant received a policy and he was given NCB of 20% for a sum of Rs.2,500/-. Not only that the investigator appointed during the analysing of that case also found that this vehicle was also insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. for the same period however that policy was cancelled as the cheque issued by complainant in respect of that policy bounced.
First of all the present complaint is not maintainable in view of the order of Ld. Insurance Obdusman and it is clear that the insured has made a false declaration in the proposal form. Complainant has claimed NCB of 25% on the basis of false declaration and since he has made false declaration, he is not entitled for any claim and the repudiation was justified.
It is useful to refer to case of Inderpal Rana Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Revision Petition No.4470 of 2014 decided on 02.01.2015 where Hon’ble National Commission in para 7 has held as under:-
“7. In the case before us, by seeking a no claim bonus, the petitioner made an assertion that he had not taken any claim on the vehicle which he was seeking to insure with the National Insurance Company. Having taken a claim, he knew it very well that the aforesaid representation made by him was not correct. The aforesaid misrepresentation obviously was made with intent to deceive, so as to obtain a No Claim Bonus which National Insurance Company Ltd. would not have allowed, had the petitioner disclosed that he had already taken a claim against the aforesaid insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.”
“8. Even if there has been failure on the part of the officers of the Insurance Company in verifying the declaration made by the petitioner while taking the policy what cannot be a good ground for reimbursing him on the basis of a policy, which he obtained by misrepresentation to the Insurance Company. If we allow such a claim only on the ground that the officials of the Insurance Company should have verified the declaration made by the petitioner, and they having not done so, the insured cannot be denied his claim, that may result in a situation where pursuant to a connivance between the insurer and the officials of the Insurance Company the insured makes a misrepresentation and the officials in connivance with him does not verify the said representation. In such a case, the Insurance Company would be saddled with liability on the basis of a contract which has been entered on the basis of misrepresentation. We, therefore, reject the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”
In view of the law laid by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Inderpal Rana Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Revision Petition No.4470 of 2014 decided on 02.01.2015, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the claim case was justifiably repudiated. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
