Hyderabad Ombudsman Centre
Case No. IO(HYD) / G / 11.004.0274
Sri. Mani Shekhar
Vs
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
The respondent company had an agreement with Indian Oil Corporation, according to which whoever purchased 10/20 liters of Servo Brand Lubricant between 09.05.2003 and 08.05.2004 would be entitled to free PA cover of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively. The agreement also provided that an employee of the purchaser of the lubricant can be the person who is insured under this free scheme. On 31.03.2004, the employer purchased “SERVO PRIDE 40” from Keerthi and Co. who issued the insurance certificate with Mr. Chand Basha as the insured person and the employer as the nominee. The insured person died in a road accident on 02.04.2004.
The claim was rejected on the ground that the certificate of insurance is not issued as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The document does not bear signature of the insured person and the nomination is not valid and binding upon the insurer. The employer gave in writing to the insurer that the claim money would be paid to the widow. The insurers furnished a copy of the agreement as well as the Do’s and Don’ts given to the dealers enlisting the procedure for issuing the certificate of insurance. It is clear that the primary intention of the scheme is to give insurance coverage to the buyers/employees of the buyers of certain products of IOC.
The insurers did not dispute either the purchase of the lubricant on 31.03.2004 or the eligibility of the insured to be covered. There is no doubt that there was valid coverage. The various objections raised by the insurers are procedural in nature and have no bearing on the validity of insurance cover. The insurers are directed to settle the claim in favor of the legal heirs of the deceased as per law.
