Hyderabad Ombudsman Centre
Case No. IO(HYD) / G / 11.004.0369
Smt. T. Savithri
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 01.11.2003, one Sri. Venkateshwara Rao purchased 20 litres of the said lubricant for his customer Sr. Jagannath, truck owner.
The invoice for the purchase was in the name of Sri. Jagannath, but the certificate of insurance giving the free PA coverage was in the name of Sri. Venkateshwara Rao. Sri. Venkateshwara Rao met with an accident on 11.06.2004 and later succumbed to them on 22.06.2004. The insurer rejected the claim on the ground that the original cash memo for the purchase of the lubricant, which is mandatory, was not submitted.
The complainant stated that the original cash memo was handed over by her husband to the owner of the truck in whose name the lubricant was purchased. The insurer stated that there was no master servant or blood relationship between Sri. Jagannath and Sri. Venkateshwara Rao. 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. The insurers contend that the certificate of insurance is issued only with reference to a policy of insurance and it is necessary that the conditions of the policy be complied with for a valid claim to arise.
It is clear that the primary intention of the scheme is to give insurance coverage to the buyers/employees of the buyers, dependants of the buyers, of certain products of IOC. The insurers contend that the deceased did not purchase the lubricant, and the insurance under the scheme cannot apply to him. The deceased did not pay any amount either as premium or otherwise either to the insurer or the dealer of IOC. Thus he cannot be said to be a part of the scheme. In view of the above arguments of the insurers and wordings of the agreement between the insurers and IOC, the insurer’s decision to repudiate the claim is upheld.
