Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S Ramdev Masala Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: FA. No. 213/2011
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Dr. Sadhna Shanker, has ruled in favor of Ramdev Masala against United India Insurance for a deficiency in service due to the wrongful rejection of an insurance claim.
Case Summary
Ramdev Masala held an insurance policy worth Rs. 20,00,000 with United India Insurance through a bank. During the policy period, their stock experienced severe damage due to lightning and flooding. Initially, the company reported flood damage to the insurer but later learned from the cold storage owner that lightning was the actual cause. The insurer rejected the claim, stating that the policy did not cover flood damage. At Ramdev Masala’s request, a surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss at Rs. 17,57,930 but questioned the lightning damage claim. Dissatisfied with the insurer’s decision, Ramdev Masala approached the State Commission of Gujarat, which dismissed the complaint, leading them to appeal to the National Commission.
Insurer’s Arguments
The insurer argued that the policy’s exclusion clause h(ii) did not cover losses caused by atmospheric disturbances, such as storms, floods, and inundations. They also contended that there was no proof that atmospheric lightning caused the damage. Additionally, the complainant had initially admitted that the damage was due to flooding. The insurer further argued that the surveyor’s report was unreliable since the surveyor acknowledged that the policy covered flood risks. They also noted that the flood occurred before the reported lightning, which, according to them, could not be the cause of the damage.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission found that the surveyor had dismissed the evidence provided by Ramdev Masala about the damage. It was evident that the cold storage building was significantly damaged by lightning and rain. The surveyor’s conclusion that the damage was due to morning rain rather than lightning was not backed by solid evidence. Consequently, the National Commission overturned the State Commission’s order and upheld the appeal. The Commission directed the insurer to pay Rs. 17,57,930 with an interest rate of 9% per annum.
Takeaway
This judgment underscores the importance of insurers thoroughly and fairly assessing claims. Policyholders should ensure that all evidence is meticulously documented and presented. If an insurance claim is wrongfully denied, consumers have the right to seek redress and can appeal to higher authorities for justice.
