Ahmedabad Ombudsman Centre
Case No. 11-005-0175
Dr. Falguni Mehta
Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Complainant, while taking a House Holder’s Policy, submitted a list of 12 Items to be covered under the Policy, including her Mobile Phone. Her Mobile phone was stolen. Respondent while repudiating the Claim, stated that Mobile Phone being covered under Section 1-B & 2, the claim is not payable as it was stolen from outside the House. The point taken for determination is whether the Mobile Phone was covered under the aforesaid Sections. It is observed from the File of the Respondent presented during Hearing that there were so many infirmities. Even the Proposal Form was neither filled-up and signed by the Complainant – it was done by someone. The Proposal Form did not contain any entry under Section-3. In the meantime, the Policy schedule issued by the Respondent contained columns filled up against Section-3. Complainant submitted that she was not aware of any such bifurcation of risk. This Forum asked the Respondent during Hearing to segregate which particular item from the list of 12 items submitted by the Complainant at the Proposal stage is covered under Section-3 of the Policy Schedule, they could not identify any of the items. Held that the Complainant’s contention that she intended to include the Mobile Phone under Section- 3 is to be accepted. Respondent to pay Rs. 4500/- net to the Complainant.
