Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Raja Vasireddy Komallavalli Kamba & ... on 27 March, 1984
21. Circumstances of the case clearly show that premium was accepted for
comprehensive insurance including diseases and after disease was noticed in the
prawns. Insurance Company had even deputed its surveyor to asses damage.
Harvesting of the prawns was done only after damage had been assessed. When the
oral request of the complainant for supply of claim forms failed and a letter was
written on 6.3.96, it is thereafter in late March, complainant was informed that it had
agreed to 'accidental cover only'. Only on the third receipt issued in January, 96 there
is an endorsement that it is for accidental cover only but this is not so on the first two
receipts. As we have noticed above, for 90 days which would the period of insurance
cover complainant would not have been informed of the decision of the Regional
Officer or Head Office and rather surveyor had come to assess the damage. For the
first two receipts of premium we agree with the State Commission that there was a
concluded contract of insurance which covered the disease with which prawns
suffered. Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two
decisions certainly favours the complainant.