Kochi Ombudsman Centre
Case No. IO / KCH / GI / 11/ NIA / 109 /2003 – 04
Shri. Sojan Joseph
Vs
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Shri Sojan Joseph has filed this complaint challenging the decision of the Insurer to close his Burglary Insurance Claim under policy No. 4676100300669 as “NO CLAIM”. As per the version of the complainant a theft had taken place in his factory premises on 10.08.1994 and the matter was reported to all the authorities concerned. The estimated loss by theft was to the tune of Rs. 4.6 lakhs. The Insurer had failed in their duty to indemnify the insured. He prays to reopen the case and award Rs. 450955/-.
The insurer contended that the policy was obtained by the complainant through misrepresentation of essential details and the complainant having been found to have violated the conditions of the policy and the gross non-cooperation on the part of the Insured they had no other go but to treat the case ‘No Claim’. The claim was repudiated citing many inconsistencies and misrepresentations by the complainant with ulterior motives. The decision to reject the claim partially was in order.
Taking into consideration all the records available in the file and also the contention of the parties concerned, the Ombudsman ruled that the respondent has acted judiciously. The factory was a non-existing one at the time of proposal. The declaration of the complainant before the Hon. I Class Magistrate, Parur dated 30.09.1994 classifies this aspect. The Insurer would not have never undertaken the risk on a long discarded business premises if only the facts were disclosed in the proposal for insurance.
No. contract is valid unless the parties are of the same mind. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation as he had violated most of the policy conditions willfully. The Insurer cannot themselves absolve from their duty to the public. Before entertaining such a heavy risk they should have inspected the property and should have verified the veracity of the declarations of their Agents / Development officers.
If due vigilance is shown such type of irregularities would not have happened. The Insurer being a custodian of public money, ordinary business prudence demands eternal vigilance in all such transactions. Being devoid of merits, this complaint is dismissed.
