'Insurance cos can't define theft'
Holding that the insurance company cannot alter with the statutory definition of 'theft', a consumer court has directed them not to add pre-condition to deny legitimate claims or benefits to the clients.
By PTI |
NEW DELHI: Holding that the insurance company cannot alter with the statutory definition of 'theft', a consumer court has directed them not to add pre-condition to deny legitimate claims or benefits to the clients.
"The insurance companies (by adding their own words) cannot take away the benifit of insurance from the claimants in case of theft of the insured article, thus theft has to be taken as it is," said the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The Commission Bench headed by Justice J D Kapoor and Member Rumnitta Mittal termed the insurance clause "illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable" which says that only those incidents of theft, which are followed by "violence or forced entry" into the victims' premises, would be covered under the policy.
The order came on an appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited (NICL) against the order of a District Consumer Forum which had asked it to pay Rs 8,800 as compensation including the claim amount to one Jitender Kumar Garg whose insurance cover of his mobile handset, after the theft, was repudiated.
Dismissing the appeal, the Commission added once the theft of an insured object is followed by "violence or forced entry" the offence no more remains the same and it becomes either 'extortion' or 'robbery'.
As per the complaint, filed by Garg, resident of Panchsheel Enclave, Delhi, he bought an "anti-theft insurance policy'" for his Nokia mobile handset.
Later, after the theft of his handset, he approached the NICL seeking the payment of insurance amount.
But, to his utter shock, the NICL, instead of paying the claim amount, repudiated the policy stating that the act of "theft" was not followed by "violence or forced entry" compelling Garg to approach the District forum for redressal.
The forum allowed Garg's complaint.
Against this, the NICL appealed to the Commission, which, though scaled down the compensation by Rs 580, upheld the Forum's verdict and cautioned the company not to add or delete into the legal definition of offences against whom it sells insurance policies.
"In our view, such a clause having any pre-condition or condition precedent to the word 'theft' is illegal, arbitrary, unenforceable being not in consonance with the defnition of 'theft' provided by the law of the land ie the IPC as 'theft' lacks ingredients of force or violence and cap it ahl, being against the very object of the insurance benifit clause," said the Commission.
Download
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Download
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
ADVERTISEMENT
