Insurance Company should not be too technical while settling insurance claims: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that while settling insurance claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control [Gurmel Singh v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited]..A division bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was hearing an appeal assailing the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had refused to grant relief under the insurance policy to the appellant.The appellant's truck was insured with the respondent-insurance company for the period from August 22, 2012 to August 21, 2013. The appellant had also paid a sum of ₹28,880 to the company towards premium.On March 23-24, 2013, the insured vehicle of the appellant was stolen. A First Information Report (FIR) was immediately lodged and the appellant also informed the insurance company as well as the Regional Transport Office (RTO) regarding the theft of his vehicle.The appellant also submitted all the documents sought by the insurance company, but the insurance company failed to settle the claim.Aggrieved, the appellant moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), which disposed of the plea directing the appellant to submit duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration of truck to the insurance company within a month.The insurance company was directed to settle the claim as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy within a month after receiving the same. However, RTO denied to issue duplicate certified copy of the certificate of registration to the appellant on the ground that due to the report of the theft of the truck, the details regarding registration certificate on the computer was locked. Thereafter, the appellant submitted an application before the insurance company along with photocopy of the certificate of registration and registration particulars, as provided by the RTO. Despite the above, the claim of the appellant was not settled.Aggrieved, the appellant had moved the DCDRC which dismissed the complaint by observing that as the appellant had not filed the relevant documents for settlement of claim therefore, the non-settlement of the claim cannot be said to be deficiency in service. The State Commission and the NCDRC also upheld the order of DCDRC.The appellant then moved the present appeal before the apex court..At the outset, the Court noted that the insurance claim of the appellant was not settled mainly on the ground that he had not produced either the original certificate of registration or even the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration issued by the RTO. However, the appellant did produce the photocopy of certificate of registration and other registration particulars as provided by the RTO.It was observed by the Court that the appellant had tried his best to get the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration of the Truck. However, because of the report of theft of the truck, the details of registration on the computer had been locked and the RTO has refused to issue the duplicate certified copy of registration.In this backdrop, the Court observed that:"In the facts and circumstance of the case, when the appellant had produced the photocopy of certificate of registration and the registration particulars as provided by the RTO, solely on the ground that the original certificate of registration (which has been stolen) is not produced, non-settlement of claim can be said to be deficiency in service. Therefore, the appellant has been wrongly denied the insurance claim."The Court was of the view that the insurance company had become too technical while settling the claim and acted arbitrarily."The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non-submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control," the Court said. Therefore, the Bench set aside the orders passed by the DCDRC Chhattisgarh, State Commission and the NCDRC and held that the appellant is entitled to the insurance amount of ₹12 lakh along with interest at 7 per cent from the date of submitting the claim..[Read Judgment]