Chhattisgarh consumer court directs insurance company to pay Rs 85,71,271 with 6% interest to complainant | India News
Order of Chhattisgarh Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Insurance company To Salary Rs 85,71,271 with 6% interest M / s. Shree Shyam Food Products, The company rejected the claim for damaged stock, sparking a legal battle. The Consumer Court's decision laid emphasis on adherence to rules and timely claim settlement.
Chhattisgarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled in favor of a complainant Insurance The company directed him to pay the amount of Rs 85,71,271 within 45 days with an interest rate of 6% per annum. The complainant, M/s. Shree Shyam Food Products had filed a complaint alleging restrictive trade practices by Oriental Insurance Company in rejecting an insurance claim. The insurance policy covered a sum assured of Rs 1,20,00,000 for the period between April 2016 to April 2017, in which the stocks maintained by the complainant in the course of business operations were insured.
Controversy arose when a fire incident in May 2016 damaged the stock, following which a preliminary survey was conducted by a surveyor appointed by the insurance company. The final survey assessed the loss at Rs 85,71,271, along with a claim for compensation for mental agony and harassment. Despite the complainant's efforts to settle the claim, the insurance company rejected it in July 2019.
The complainant alleged that the insurance company wrongly rejected the claim on grounds not disclosed in the policy schedule or insurance proposal. He further claimed that the company failed to follow the rules laid down by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India for claim settlement.
The Consumer Court highlighted that the insurance company failed to act on the final survey report and unnecessarily delayed the settlement by appointing multiple investigators. The court emphasized that the company's actions constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Justice Gautam Chouradia, chairman of the consumer court, said, 'Thus, with the above discussion we are of the view that the insurance company should have acted on the final survey and assessment report and settled the claim accordingly and not to have done so. But he did it. Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in unnecessary delay in settlement of claim in appointment of various investigators and taking opinion of investigation cum expert, which was unnecessary and against the provisions under Section 64 of Regulation 2017 and Insurance Act.'
The insurance company has been directed to pay the awarded amount along with the cost of the suit to the complainant.
Chhattisgarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled in favor of a complainant Insurance The company directed him to pay the amount of Rs 85,71,271 within 45 days with an interest rate of 6% per annum. The complainant, M/s. Shree Shyam Food Products had filed a complaint alleging restrictive trade practices by Oriental Insurance Company in rejecting an insurance claim. The insurance policy covered a sum assured of Rs 1,20,00,000 for the period between April 2016 to April 2017, in which the stocks maintained by the complainant in the course of business operations were insured.
Controversy arose when a fire incident in May 2016 damaged the stock, following which a preliminary survey was conducted by a surveyor appointed by the insurance company. The final survey assessed the loss at Rs 85,71,271, along with a claim for compensation for mental agony and harassment. Despite the complainant's efforts to settle the claim, the insurance company rejected it in July 2019.
The complainant alleged that the insurance company wrongly rejected the claim on grounds not disclosed in the policy schedule or insurance proposal. He further claimed that the company failed to follow the rules laid down by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India for claim settlement.
The Consumer Court highlighted that the insurance company failed to act on the final survey report and unnecessarily delayed the settlement by appointing multiple investigators. The court emphasized that the company's actions constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Justice Gautam Chouradia, chairman of the consumer court, said, 'Thus, with the above discussion we are of the view that the insurance company should have acted on the final survey and assessment report and settled the claim accordingly and not to have done so. But he did it. Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in unnecessary delay in settlement of claim in appointment of various investigators and taking opinion of investigation cum expert, which was unnecessary and against the provisions under Section 64 of Regulation 2017 and Insurance Act.'
The insurance company has been directed to pay the awarded amount along with the cost of the suit to the complainant.
