Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The repudiation letter dated 16.6.2000 by the United India Insurance Co.Ltd. narrated as follows :

16.6.2000 "Asha Devi Garg 383, Hamuman Ji Ka Rasta Tripolia Bazar JAIPUR - 3 Madan, RE CLAIM NO. 140301/42/7/573/96-97 UNDER P.A. Policy A/c LATE KISHORI SHARAN GARG Reference the above said claim regarding the death of Shri Kishori Sharan Gars, the company has processed the claim. On receipt of the intimation, the survey has been got conducted from the approved surveyors of the company, the investigations have been carried out by Shri G.L.Yadav retired Deputy Superintendent of Police and on the basis of the these documents as well as proposal form and other evidence, the company has also obtained legal opinion NC/OP/164/2001_272/2001 Page | 9 in the matter. Thereafter the Board of the Company which is the competent authority for such a claim has considered the matter and applied its mind and on the basis of such exercises, the company has decided to repudiate the claim on the following grounds amongst others:

13. The repudiation letter dated 29.9.2000 by the National Insurance Co. is as follows: 

          "370203/81/96-97/33/50                                       Dated 29-09-2000

          Smt. Asha Garg.

          W/o Late Shri Kishori Sharan garg.

383, Lashkari Bhawan, Hanuman Ji Ka Rasta, Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur "without prejudice Sub:- Personal Accident Policy For Rs. Five Crores. (Policy No. 370203.8100236/97) Ref our Claim No. : 370203/81/96-97/33/50 Madam, We regret to inform your goodself that the competent authority has repudiated your above referred claim for the under mentioned reasons-

He has then advanced his submissions in respect of the answers given to the question No.10-(a) & (b) which has also been made the basis for repudiation to contend that on 19.03.1996 a proposal form had been filled up which is on record. He does not dispute the factum of the filling up of the said form and he contends that the said document is not even disputed by the Opposite Party - Insurance Company. The proposal form dated 19.03.1996 according to him was neither accepted nor rejected nor any communication was sent to the complainant about its status. He submits that the stand of the Insurance Company that the said form stood rejected cannot be accepted in the absence of any communication to that effect. He however submits that what is important about the contents of the said form is the disclosure of the pre-existing policies by the insured in the said form namely that of the policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He submits that the ground taken in the repudiation letter therefore is incorrect inasmuch as the fact of disclosure of a pre-existing policy taken from the Life Insurance Corporation was well within the knowledge of the Insurance Company and therefore the claim could not have been repudiated on that ground.

12. He has also invited the attention of the Bench to question no. 32 posed to another witness of the Insurance Company namely Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saxena, the Regional Manager, who while answering the same, has admitted that all proposals include a date. It is therefore urged that none of the proposal forms NC/OP/164/2001_272/2001 Page | 31 indicate any date and on the other hand, the policy which was relied on and was issued, and is a document produced by the Insurance Company, categorically records the date of proposal and declaration as 11.02.1997. He submits that the policy categorically states that the Insurance Company had received the written proposal as stated in the schedule and it is therefore urged by Mr. Basu that it was obligated on the Insurance Company to have produced the said proposal which they have deliberately withheld or have either misplaced it that could have thrown light on the correct proposal form. The Insurance Company having failed to do so has therefore not discharged its burden of proving the existence of the correct proposal form on the basis whereof the policy was issued and hence, there cannot be any assumption of an alleged non-disclosure or incorrect disclosure by the insured as attempted and recited in the repudiation letter dated 16.06.2000. Mr. Basu submits that the contents of the repudiation letter therefore having not been substantiated and established, the repudiation letter has no legs to stand.