Khushi Gupta
Published on: May 21, 2022 at 16:08 IST
The Supreme Court said Insurance Companies are refusing claims in many Cases on “flimsy grounds” while observing that they should not be too technical while settling the claims and ask for documents that the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.
A Bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said that the Appellant, who was the owner of the truck, was wrongly denied the insurance claim and the insurance company had become “too technical” while settling the claim and had acted “arbitrarily”.
“Therefore, in the Facts and circumstance of the Case, when the Appellant had produced the photocopy of the certificate of registration and the registration particulars as provided by the RTO, solely on the ground that the Original Certificate of Registration (which has been stolen) is not produced, non-settlement of claim can be said to be a deficiency in service,” the Bench said in its Judgement.
It noted that the insurance claim was not settled mainly on the ground that the appellant had not produced either the Original Certificate of registration or even the Duplicate Certified Copy of the Certificate of Registration issued by the Regional Transport Office (RTO).
“In many Cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on Flimsy Grounds and/or Technical Grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control,” it said.
The Bench said the Appellant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs. 12 lakhs along with interest at 7 percent from the date of submitting the claim.
Aggrieved by the delay in settling the claim, the appellant then filed a fresh consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which dismissed it by observing that as he had not filed the relevant documents for settlement of the claim.
Therefore, the non-settlement of the claim cannot be said to be a deficiency in service.