DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 238/2019

No. DC/ Central/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1. Sh. Krishan Lal Satija (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against SBI General Insurance (in short OP) pleading therein that his wife was owner of vehicle FORD FIGO Four Wheeler No. DL-10-CF-8528 and the same was insured vide policy no. 0000000006565611-01 w.e.f. 20.06.2018 to 19.06.2019 with OP. The vehicle was stolen on 11.03.2019. He intimated the OP on the same date about theft of the vehicle without delay. FIR was also registered on the same day. Complainant lodged his claim with OP providing all the necessary document. However, on 05.04.2019 OP repudiated the claim saying that Mrs. Sushila Satija, the owner of the vehicle died on 27.10.2017 whereas registration certificate and insurance policy were not transferred in the name of her legal heirs till date.

Complainant has prayed for direction to OP to pay him a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- (IDV of the Car) with interest @ of 12 % per annum, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation expenses of  Rs. 3,00,000/-.

2. OP contested the claim, inter alia, on the grounds that private car package policy was taken by  Late Mrs. Sushila Satija which expired on 19.06.2018.  During the policy period insured Sushila Sujita expired on 27.10.2017. Complainant/ husband of the insured got the policy renewed in June 2018 for the period 20.06.2018 to 19.06.2019 without informing the OP about her death. Hence, the policy was renewed in the name of a dead person. It is stated that the claim of the complainant was rejected under Condition 8 for non-fulfillment of Condition 9 of policy.
3. Both sides filed evidence by way of affidavit. They also filed written arguments. It is not in dispute that insured was no more when the policy in question was renewed. Condition 9 of the policy is reproduced by the OP in Para 7, page 5 of its reply.

“Condition 9

In the event of the death of the sole insured, this Policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of insured or until the expiry of this policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period, legal heir(s) of the Insured to whom the custody and use of the motor vehicle passes may apply to have this Policy transferred to the name(s) of the heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle. Where such legal heir(s) desire(s) to apply for transfer of this policy or obtain a new policy for the vehicle such heir(s) should make an application to the company accordingly within the aforesaid period. All such applications should be accompanied by:

1. Death Certificate in respect of the Insured
2. Proof of title to the vehicle
3. Original Policy.”
   4. It is further stated by the OP that complainant failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated that as per Condition 8 compliance of the terms and conditions of the policy is mandatory. Condition 8 is reproduced at page 6 as under.

“The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of this Policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the Insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy.”

5. OP has also relied on a judgement of Hon. National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission in para 8 of the reply which is stated to be as under:-

In Nirasha Sinha vs HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Revision Petition No. 3337 of 2016 it was held that

“The entire case of the petitioner is based upon an averment that the death of her husband was intimated to the insurer vide letter dated 15.10.2011 vide which the insurer was requested to transfer the policy in her name. However, no evidence was led by the petitioner/ complainant to prove the service of any such letter upon the insurer. In the absence of such a proof, it cannot be accepted that the death was conveyed to the insurer and it was asked to transfer the policy in the name of the complainant.”

“It thus stand proved that insurance policy for two terms- firstly from 26.11.2011 to 25.10.2012 and then from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 were obtained in the name of a dead person. The contract in the name of a dead person being a nullity in the eye of law, the insurer is not bound to make any payment to the complainant for the loss alleged to have been caused.”

6. It is stated that complainant neither got the registration of the vehicle nor the insurance policy transferred after the death of his wife in his name and therefore OP has justified repudiation of the claim.
7. It is not disputed that neither registration certificate nor insurance policy was got transferred by the complainant in his name after the death of his wife. Insurance policy was got renewed in the name of dead person. Therefore, it is void. Insured died on 27.10.2017. The complainant/ husband of the insured got the policy renewed in June 2018 vide policy no. 0000000006565611-01 for the period 20.06.2018 to 19.06.2019.  It is the case of OP that complainant did not inform the OP about the death of the insured when the policy was got renewed in June 2018. Complainant has orally alleged that the same was communicated to unnamed executive of the OP. There is no document to support the case of the complainant that OP was ever intimated about the death of the insured at the time of renewal of the insurance policy.
8. It is settled law that an insurance policy must be carefully construed, and it is not permitted to rewrite the contract while reading the policy’s terms.

In Life Insurance Corporation of India and another vs sunita, Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 13868 of 2019, dated 29.10.2011 Hon. Supreme Court observed that

“It is well settled legal position that in a contract of insurance there is a requirement of Uberrima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the assured. The Supreme Court in case of Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. v/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599, while dealing with the contract of insurance held as under:-

9. In view of the aforesaid, Complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 11^th of March of 2022.