Ludhiana | Insurance firm directed to pay ₹10 lakh, interest to accident victim’s wife

As per terms of the policy, the nominated beneficiary, was to get an assured sum of ₹10 lakh in event of accidental death of the insured person; however insurance firm said victim’s licence was not valid at time of the accident

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed an insurance company to honour a ₹10 lakh personal accident insurance claim and pay ₹5,500 as compensation for deficient service to the victim’s wife.

The counsel for the insurance company pleaded that the Ludhiana consumer commission had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim. The bank, however, said that it had nothing to do with the rejection of the claim. (Representative Image/HT File)

The complainant, Rajinder Kaur, the widow of Jagtar Singh of Jhamat village, had submitted a complaint against Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited and Indian Overseas Bank, Baddowal Cantonment, Ludhiana. She had said that her husband who held an account with the bank was covered under the IOB Suraksha, personal accident insurance policy, which was valid from May 23, 2017 to April 13, 2018.

As per terms of the policy, the nominated beneficiary, was to get an assured sum of ₹10 lakh in event of accidental death of the insured person. It so happened that her husband met with a road mishap on December 29, 2017 and succumbed to his injuries on December 31, 2017.

However, the insurance company rejected the complainant’s claim on February 9, 2018, on grounds that her husband did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident.

The counsel for the insurance company pleaded that the Ludhiana consumer commission had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim. The bank, however, said that it had nothing to do with the rejection of the claim. “Moreover, the claim has been rightly rejected that the deceased was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and this amounts to breach of condition of the policy”, contended the bank.

However, the commission in its order observed that the case studies cited by the counsel of the insurance company, demanding dismissal of the application of the complaint, were cases of vehicle insurance, rather than accidental death.

The commission dismissed the complaint against the bank but allowed the complaint against the insurance company. “The insurance company is directed to pay the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy along with a 6% per annum interest from the date of filing the complaint, till actual payment and also to pay ₹5,500 compensation to the complainant”, read the order.