‘She was drunk’: Insurer denies Rs 3 lakh claim, consumer court directs payout with compensation

The Navasari Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled in the favour of a woman after her insurance company rejected her Rs 3 lakh claiming that she was drunk, reports TOI.

The woman had visited a Mumbai cafe in 2024 for dinner. After the dinner the complainant fell and required surgery which was done at the Breach Candy Hospital. She filed a claim with her insurer Oriental Insurance which as per her policy provided a Rs 8 lakh coverage.

The commission in its ruling stated that just because the complainant was attending a dinner with her friends where alcohol was being served doesn’t mean she was drunk. The insurance company had been ordered to pay her the Rs 3 lakh with an additional Rs 5,000 for harassment.


The company had rejected the woman’s claim in May 2025 on the grounds that accident happened because she was in an inebriated state

Consumer commission pulls up United India Insurance for deficiency in service

The Ernakulam district consumer disputes redressal commission has directed United India Insurance Company to pay Rs 35,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice arising from a delay in settling insurance claims. The commission ordered that the amount be paid within 30 days.

The order was issued on a complaint filed by Jabeen L Zacharias, who had insured her office building, furniture and electronic equipment under a compact policy issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd. The policy was valid from April 26, 2009, to April 25, 2010.

According to the complainant, a sudden electrical fault or short circuit in the first week of February 2010 allegedly damaged multiple electronic items in the office. The insurer was promptly informed and, on its direction, irreparable items were segregated for inspection while repair estimates were obtained for other damaged items.

Due to a delay in inspection, the office was closed on February 6, 2010. Upon reopening, a break-in and theft were discovered, following which a police complaint was lodged. Four claims were subsequently filed, and the complainant carried out repairs as advised.

The complaint stated that, apart from a denial of the theft claim after several months, the insurance company failed to decide on the remaining three claims, citing delay despite repeated intimations and reminders. The commission held the insurer liable for complying with its directions.