11 June 2024 Consumer Complaints >> Civil & Consumer Law  

A recent revision petition filed by an insurance company challenging a claim denial was dismissed by the court. The case involved a truck theft, delayed intimation to the insurer, and a consumer complaint against the insurance company's claim repudiation.

The policyholder had purchased motor insurance for their truck. Unfortunately, the truck was stolen, and an FIR was filed. However, there was a delay in informing the insurance company about the theft. This delay led the insurance company to reject the claim, citing a violation of policy terms regarding intimation timelines.

Unhappy with the decision, the policyholder filed a consumer complaint against the insurance company. The District Forum partially allowed the complaint, awarding 75% of the insured amount. The insurance company appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), but their appeal was dismissed, upholding the District Forum's order.

The insurance company then filed a revision petition, arguing that the delay in intimation justified their claim rejection. However, the court did not find merit in their arguments. The court pointed out that recent Supreme Court judgments have downplayed the significance of delayed intimation as a sole reason for claim denial.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. This power is meant for specific situations, such as when the lower court acted illegally or made a material error. In this case, the lower courts had reached concurrent findings based on the evidence presented, and the revisional court was not empowered to re-evaluate those findings.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the SCDRC's order. This decision highlights the growing importance of considering factors beyond just delayed intimation when evaluating insurance claims. It also emphasizes the importance of following proper procedures when filing consumer complaints against insurance companies.