NCDRC rejects complainant’s plea against insurance firm

Holding the complainant guilty of “misrepresenting facts”, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on April 11, dismissed a plea seeking compensation from ICICI Lombard General Insurance.

In the plea, the complainant had stated that his vehicle was involved in an accident on the DND flyover in March 2017. Further, it was alleged that despite having a valid insurance policy that covered the vehicle, the insurance policy had repudiated the claim.

Sought compensation

Challenging the repudiation of the claim, the complainant had approached the national consumer disputes forum, seeking compensation from the insurance company.

The plea sought directions to the insurance company to “pay for repairs of the car and also to pay compensation of ₹60,000 towards mental agony, pecuniary loss and loss of reputation”.

Discrepancies in claim

However, noting submissions made by the insurance company, of “misrepresentation of facts”, the national forum observed that there were discrepancies in the claim form and the first information report filed by the complainant.

“It is evident that the stand of the complainant in the insurance claim form is that the subject’s car got damaged while it accidentally hit the roadside security guard booth number 2 on the DND flyway. The description given in the claim form is not true as it is contrary to the first information report lodged at the police station” the NCDRC observed.

Intention to kill

Referring to the FIR that alleged that the driver of the car had purposely “collided” the car with intentions of hurting those present, the national consumer forum further observed, “It is clear that as per the FIR, the car was deliberately rammed by the driver into the security guard booth with the intention to kill. The information given in the FIR when compared with the description of evidence given in the claim registration form, makes it clear that the complainant’s has concealed the real story and tried to give it an appearance of accident. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim is justified.”