Order Name: Jai Singh vs SBI General Insurance and Others
The local Consumer Forum in Hisar, Haryana, has found the SBI General Insurance Company guilty of service deficiency. The panel, including Jagdeep Singh, Rajni Goyat, and Dr Amita Agarwal, ruled that the insurance company failed to perform its obligations as per the Fasal Beema Yojna guidelines, despite being informed about the loss in a timely manner.
Jai Singh, a farmer who depends on agriculture for his livelihood, owns about 4 acres of farmland in Village Kalirawan. He had a Kisan Credit Card Scheme with the State Bank of India (SBI), under which a premium was deducted for Kharif Crop insurance from SBI General Insurance. However, he never received any policy or coverage note for the insurance.
His crops, including Paddy, Bajra, Maize, and Cotton, were damaged due to hailstorms and water retention. He reported the damage to the insurance company, agricultural authorities, and SBI, who assured him of compensation after an on-site inspection. However, he did not receive any payment, even though other farmers in his village did. Unhappy with the negligence, Jai Singh filed a complaint with the Consumer Forum in Hisar, claiming a loss of Rs. 4,00,000.
In response, the insurance company stated that they had issued a policy for the cotton crops and had assessed and paid Rs. 19,438 as damage, denying any further liability. SBI also denied any involvement in the claim process, explaining that they only acted as a service provider. The Deputy Director of Agriculture refuted Jai Singh’s claims, stating that they had surveyed the field and assessed the loss.
The Consumer Forum, after reviewing the case, noted that the Deputy Director of Agriculture had indeed surveyed Jai Singh’s crop and reported that his insured cotton crop suffered 50% damage due to the weather conditions. The forum ruled that the insurance company had failed to fulfill its duties as per the guidelines, as they did not inspect the damaged fields within the prescribed period. The insurance company could not adequately explain the localization of the claim intimation in their statement and evidence.
The forum concluded that Jai Singh had provided sufficient evidence of his 50% crop loss. Based on the assessment, they ruled that he was entitled to Rs. 43,722, which is half of the total insured sum of Rs. 87,444 for his 1.2145-hectare land. Since the insurance company had already paid Rs. 19,438, they were directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 24,283.2 to Jai Singh. The company was also ordered to pay Rs. 8,000 as compensation for mental distress and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation costs.
To sum it up, this ruling underscores the importance of insurance companies fulfilling their duties in a timely and transparent manner, especially when dealing with vulnerable sections of society like farmers. It serves as a reminder for policyholders to be aware of their rights and the obligations of their insurers.
