|
| 1- S N Bansal vs Orientl Insurance Company Ltd March 10,2008 |
| Rakesh Bansal was to deposit jewelllery in his bank locker. When he found the parking lot at the bank full, he decided to visit a doctor first. The jewellery he perhaps thought, was safe under neat his seat. However, when he returned, he found his car itself missing. He was fortunate to have an insurance covers for his vehicle and householder’s policy for the jewellery. Or so he thought till the insurance company repudiated his claim. After he lodged a complaint with the insurance ombudsman in Delhi, the company argued that it would indemnify the loss of the car but not the jewellery, as he had not taken: due care and caution” as required under the policy. |
| The ombudsman however dismissed the contention and directed the insurer to pay the claim amount. |
| 2- Sadhan Chakra borty Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd (May 23, 2007) |
| In this case the insurance company did not send a surveyor/ Investigator for three months after the theft of jewellery was reported by the client .As the time had passed the client got grills and the latch fixed. After a gap of 3 months when the surveyor went for visit he reported that there were no signs of “violent and forcible entry” and hence rejected the claim. The ombudsman held that this argument of insurance company was unacceptable. The company was instructed to pay. |
