SANJAY KHANDELWAL Vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
LAWS(NCD)-2020-8-60
NCDRC
Decided on August 24,2020

Sanjay Khandelwal Appellant
VERSUS
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K.JAIN,J. - (1.) The complainant/appellant obtained a policy namely Accident Guard Policy from the respondent for the period from 06.05.2008 to 05.05.2009. His case is that on 13.05.2009 he met with an accident while travelling as the pillion rider on a motor-cycle and was admitted to Metro Hospital, Hisar. He was advised amputation of his left hand but he preferred another hospital and was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at New Delhi on 15.05.2008. It is the case of the complainant that he became permanently disabled to the extent of 70% on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. A claim was lodged by him with the insurer but the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 02l.12.2009 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:- "1. The claim was intimated to us on 16th May 2008, towards the alleged accident on 13 May 2008. As pointed out in our earlier letter dt. 11th November th 2009, a claim form and list of documents to be submitted was sent to you on 19th May 2008 and subsequent reminders were sent on 3 and 20 October 2008. rd th However, in spite of our timely request for the claim documents and reminders, we did not receive any response from you side nor was any indication even on the grievous nature of injury suffered by you. The incident is said to have occurred within 7 days of inception of the policy but we were informed of the extent and seriousness of the injury only when the claim documents were submitted to us on 1st June 2009. i.e. after a period of more than one year, thus depriving us of an opportunity for timely investigation of alleged accident and claimed. Further, as stated in our earlier letter, the documents/information as requested by us was given to us in piece-meal manner and clarificator, related to details of Uma matching, were request4ed vide our-email dated 9th October 2009 were presented during the personal visit of our representative on 24th October 2009. 2. For the reasons stated below, we find that there is a clear violation of the Policy No. 7, stipulating: As per the Proposal Form , dated 07 May 2008 duly, signed by you, your annual income th was submitted as Rs. 10.00,000 whereas as per the copy of Income Tax Return for the Financial Year 2007-08, Gross Total Income was shown as Rs.5,11,563/- only, which includes a net profit of Rs.459,564/- from Uma Matching. It was also noted that the Income Tax Returns for the FY 2006-07 86 2007-08 were filed' on 31th March 2009 - much after the policy inception and alleged accident. A discrepancy was noted in the balance sheet as available with your banker - State Bank of India,which indicates net profit of Uma Matching as Rs.131,353/- only. Hence filing of income tax returns, showing exaggerated income, after the alleged incident is a clear afterthought and was done to justify taking the PA policy of a huge amount which was clearly disproportionate to the then proved income. In the light of above, it is evident that you have mis-represented the material fact of your Income which was the basis for calculation of sum insured under the policy. 3. Proposal Form clearly indicates that: "If it is found that the. answers of particulars stated in this Proposal Form and Medical Declaration are incorrect or untrue on any respect, I/We hereby acknowledge that the Insurance Company shall incur no liability for any Insurance coverage" It is evident from facts elucidated under point No. 2 that the answers of particulars stated in this proposal form are incorrect or untrue. 4. Being a producer/ agent for the TATA-AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., you were well aware of the Policy terms and the condition that the" maximum ' sum insured that can be opted in case of Self Employed Person is 20 times of income as appearing in IT Acknowledgement/Audited P&L. However, as indicated above, it is evident that you have misrepresented the material fact related to your annual income which was the basis for calculation of the sum insured under the policy. 5. In addition to the above, the following facts are observed by us, which throws doubts on the incident and the claim: No formal FIR was lodged towards the alleged accident, on the other hand a written request was given by your brother Mr. Deepak Khandelwal to Hlsar Police Station not to investigate the case/ to intiate proceeding, against the accused vehicle /owner in an apparent attempt to avoid a through investigation by the police authorities. The disability certificate from office of civil surgeon, Bhiwani dt. 3- June 2009, Indicate the injury being more than 2 years old i.e. prior to the alleged accidental injury. A visit was made by experts from M/s. Truth Labs (forensic Scientists) on 8 August 2009 th at the accident spot for reconstruction of occurrence. They have opined that the incidence as narrated by Mr. Sunil Kumar was highly improbable and injury report dt. 13 May 2008 is th not consistent with the description of occurrence given by yourself and Mr. Sunil Kumar. In the light of points number 1 to 5, we regret, our inability to entertain this claim and look at this as an opportunity lost to serve you."
(2.) Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the appellant/complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.
(3.) The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the ground on which the claim had been repudiated. The State Commission having dismissed the complaint vide impugned order the complainant/appellant is before this Commission.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.