Uttarakhand State Commission Upholds Order Against National Insurance Company To Reimburse Loss Caused by Flood

Brief Facts:

Shri Triveni Prasad Thapliyal (“Complainant”) insured his house with the National Insurance Company Limited (“Insurance Company”). On 30.07.2010, the Complainant’s house sustained substantial flood damage, causing a loss of Rs. 1,50,000. The complainant promptly notified the insurance company, which sent a surveyor to assess the damage and take photos. However, the insurance company denied the claim based on the surveyor's findings and informed the complainant on November 1, 2010. The complainant alleged that the insurance company's rejection of the claim constitutes deficient service, leading him to file a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (“District Commission”).

The District Commission passed an order in favor of the Complainant and directed the insurance company to pay an amount of Rs. 1,36,408/- to the Complainant. Aggrieved, the insurance company filed an appeal in the Uttarakhand State Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”).

The insurance company argued that the insurance policy specified the insured property as 254/230 East Patel Nagar, Dehradun, and not the property located at Majri Mafi, Vishvanathpuram, Mokhampur, Dehradun, where the alleged loss by flood occurred. It contended that the complainant’s property's address and location mentioned in the policy were entirely different from where the loss is claimed to have happened. This discrepancy in property details was the basis for the insurance company's rejection of the complainant's claim.

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission delved into the veracity of the insurance company’s claim that another address of the complainant was insured by the insurance policy and not the one which was actually destroyed by flood. In this regard, the insurance company was asked to present the proposal form of the said insurance. However, the insurance company submitted that the proposal form was destroyed and that it why it was unable to present it. Subsequently, the State Commission held that the insurance company failed to file cogent evidence to substantiate their claims. In the absence of the proposal form, the State Commission relied on other corroborative evidence such as bank branch location, etc. to assume that the Complainant gave the correct description of the insured property and the insurance company wrongfully repudiated his claim.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the District Commission’s order was upheld.

Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shri Triveni Prasad Thapliyal and Anr.

Case No.: Appeal No. 172 of 2016

Advocate for the Complainant/Respondent: Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia

Advocate for the Appellant/Insurance Company: Sh. H.C. Dobhal, Advocate (For Shri Triveni) and Sh. Ravinder Singh (For SBI)

Click HereTo Read/Download Order