National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Nirasha Sinha vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 18 August, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3337 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 04/08/2016 in Appeal No. 157/2016 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. NIRASHA SINHA W/O. LATE RAVI SINHA, R/O. VILLAGE BHANDARPUR, POST DHARA, TEHSIL KHAIRAGARH, DISTRICT-RAJNANDGAON CHHATTISGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR, CHAWALA COMPLEX SAI NAGAR, RAIPUR, DISTRICT-RAIPUR CHHATTISGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate
Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
Dated : 18 Aug 2017 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)
Late Shri Ravi Sharma husband of the complainant owned a car No.CG 08 K 0559 which he had got insured with the respondent company. The policy obtained by the deceased husband of the complainant was to expire on 25.10.2011. In the meanwhile, he died in a road accident on 2.10.2011. The case of the complainant is that she had requested the insurer to transfer the policy in her name. Thereafter, a fresh policy effective from 26.10.2011 was issued by the insurer in the name of the deceased husband of the complainant. The said policy was valid upto 25.10.2012. Thereafter, the policy was issued w.e.f. 1.11.2012, after a gap of 6 days.
2. The vehicle insured by the respondent met with an accident on 6.1.2013. A claim was then lodged by the complainant for reimbursement of the loss suffered by her on account of the aforesaid accident of the vehicle. The claim, however, was repudiated on the ground that the insurance policy was obtained in the name of a dead person.
3. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant/petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the insurer. The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the complainant/petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed vide order dated 4.8.2016, she is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
4. The entire case of the petitioner is based upon an averment that the death of her husband was intimated to the insurer vide letter dated 15.10.2011 vide which the insurer was requested to transfer the policy in her name. However, no evidence was led by the petitioner/complainant to prove the service of any such letter upon the insurer. In the absence of such a proof, it cannot be accepted that the death was conveyed to the insurer and it was asked to transfer the policy in the name of the complainant.
5. Admittedly, the policy in force at the time of death of the husband of the complainant expired on 25.10.2011. Admittedly, thereafter another policy was issued by the insurer for the period from 26.10.2011 to 25.10.2012 in the name of the deceased. On expiry of that policy, there was a break of 6 days and then a policy for the period from 1.11.2012 to 31.10.2013, again in the name of the deceased husband of the complainant was issued. Had the complainant already requested the insurer on 15.10.2011 to transfer the policy in her name, she would not have accepted the insurance policy issued in the name of her deceased husband for the period from 26.10.2011 to 25.10.2012 and would have returned the said policy to the insurer with a request to change the name of the insured in the said policy. That having not been done, the obvious inference is that no request on 15.10.2011 for transfer of the policy in the name of the complainant was made to the insurer.
6. Even after the policy for the period from 26.10.2011 to 25.10.2012 had expired and then a policy effective from 1.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 was issued, the complainant did not protest on account of the said policy being issued in the name of her deceased husband and did not ask for amendment of the policy by changing the name of the insured from the name of her deceased husband to her name. This is yet another indicator that the complainant did not intimate the death of her husband to the insurer and did not seek issuance of the policy in her name.
7. It thus stand proved that insurance policy for two terms - firstly from 26.11.2011 to 25.10.2012 and then from 1.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 were obtained in the name of a dead person. The contract in the name of a dead person being a nullity in the eye of law, the insurer is not bound to make any payment to the complainant for the loss alleged to have been suffered by her due to accident of the inured vehicle.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any ground to interference with the view taken by the Fora below. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER