1. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority - Delay in intimation or in submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances - The companies were advised that they must not repudiate such claims on the ground of delay - Theft took place on 11.11.2007 and the complainant reported the matter to the police on 17.11.2007 - There was some lapse on part of the complainant to inform the police and to the Insurance Company - This lapse has to be ignored by the Insurance Company as per the instructions issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority to all the insurance companies. (175) P.L.R.  
  2. IRDA (Policy Holders Interests) Regulations, 2002,  Regulation 8(3) – Insurance company should have been decided by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 within a period of 30 days and not more than 6 months i.e. latest by March, 2012 -   Thus, it was an utter disregard of the statutory provisions; the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 repudiated the claim on 19.3.2013, which took 2 years and three months to take decision in this matter - The basic issue involved in the present matter is whether the insured, suffered from any kidney disease etc. prior to submitting the proposal form for obtaining the policy and whether there has been any concealment of any material fact on his part - A perusal of the impugned order reveals that although the State Commission identified the crucial issue as stated above but they have not given any finding on the same, rather the State Commission passed their judgment based on the IRDA Regulations 2002 only, saying that the insurance company had indulged in deficiency in service in not deciding the claim within the time laid down in the Regulations -  It was the duty of the State Commission to have examined the entire evidence on record and then give a clear-cut finding on the question, whether there was any impersonation or fraud committed by the insured in any manner.    NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 ...73
  3. IRDA (Treatment Of Discontinued Link Insurance Policies) Regulations 2010 - Whether the surrender value of the policy could be given to the complainant on the basis of the IRDA circular dated 21.12.2005, or the new circular issued in the year 2010 - IRDA (treatment of discontinued link insurance policies) Regulations 2010 were notified on 01.07.2010, whereas the policy was discontinued in the year 2011 and hence, the cause of action occurred to the complainant in March, 2011, which was much after the said regulations came into force -   The State Commission also observed that theConsumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation enacted with a view to protect the interests of the consumer.  Hence, wherever two interpretations are possible, the interpretation beneficial to the consumer, should be adopted.  A harmonious construction of regulations 1(2) and 2(1)(iv) of 2010 regulations would show that these are applicable in the case of policies, discontinued after coming into force of such regulations -  I have no reason to disagree with the findings given by the State Commission that the regulations of 2010 are applicable in the present case and hence, the surrender value is to be determined as per the terms and conditions in the 2010 regulations.    NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 ...61

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.