Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the Order dated 24-10-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purba Medinipur in CC/107/2015, whereby the complaint case has been allowed, this Appeal is preferred by Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case of the Complainant, in short, was that in the wake of a road accident, his vehicle suffered damage which was duly communicated to the OP No. 2 and subsequently, a claim was also lodged by him.  The same being repudiated by the OP Insurer, he filed the complaint case.

Per contra case of the OP No. 2 was that, the Complainant, in order to avail of No Claim bonus, purposely did not disclose that he had received claim from his previous Insurer.  Therefore, in terms of the policy stipulations, the instant claim was repudiated.

Decision with reasons

Both sides were represented by their respective Ld. Advocates, who were heard at length and documents on record gone through carefully.

It seems, a Surveyor was engaged by the Appellant to assess the loss, who figured out the loss at Rs. 80,000/-.  Thus, there can be no manner of doubt as to the bona fide of the instant claim of the Respondent No. 1.

However, in view of the objection raised by the Appellant, we are to decide in this Appeal as to whether the decision of the Ld. District Forum to allow the complaint is sustainable in law or not. 

Appellant has furnished copies of some emails to establish that the Respondent No. 1 indeed got his claim settled through the previous Insurer. It transpires from one of the said emails that the previous Insurer paid a sum of Rs. 9,620/- to the Respondent No. 1 in respect of a peril occurred on 25-09-2015.  Significantly, not a single scrap of paper is furnished from the side of the Appellant to establish that the Respondent No. 1 opted for portability post 25-09-2015.  Accordingly, for want of sufficient incriminating document, we are inclined to accord benefit of doubt to the Respondent No. 1.    

In this regard, it is also important to keep in mind that the truthfulness of the declarations of the Respondent No. 1 could be verified through ordinary diligence had there been due wherewithal on the part of the Appellant before issuance of the policy itself. There was no need for them to go overdrive in the wake of occurrence of subject peril. 

It is common practice on the part of Insurers to gleefully accept premiums from prospective policyholders without asking any question to the latter and show the rule book whenever any peril occurs.  In the guise of acting on ‘good faith’, they cannot lay trap in such fashion.  It is the bounden responsibility of the Insurer to verify each and every declaration of the proposer before issuance of policy, not afterwards.  If they do not do so, they must pay the price for such laches on their part.

According to Sec. 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, fraud or misrepresentation does not render a contract void, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.

The instant complaint was rightly allowed by the Ld. District Forum and hence, it does not warrant our intervention much.  In the interests of natural justice, however, we deem it fit and proper to relieve the Appellant from paying any penalty (Rs. 100/- per diem), as ordered by the Ld. District Forum.

The Appeal, accordingly, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 in part.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellant need not pay any penal amount in terms of the impugned order.