Missing height record not a reason to deny Insurance Claim claim

Rebecca Samervel TNN  Mumbai: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld that the contract between the parties involved is complete in aninsurance policy following the receipt of the proposal and payment of the first premium. The commission held this after an insurance firm tried to wriggle out of paying money to a man's family following his death by saying that he had not recorded his weight and height, which are prerequisites.      The commission, while upholding a district forum order, directed Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co Ltd to pay the Nashikbased Patils Rs 1 lakh ininsurance along with an 18% interest from June 2005. The Patils were also awarded Rs 15,000 for mental agony and costs of litigation. The compensation, besides the insurance amount, is nearly Rs 1.41 lakh. Aggrieved by the district forum order passed against it, theinsurance company had filed an appeal with the state commission in 2007.      The complaint in the district forum was filed by the deceased Manohar Patil's wives Sangita and Asha Patil and his three children. On May 1, 2005, Manohar subscribed to the insurance policy by giving the proposal form and the first premium amount of Rs 10,550. But, after assigning the policy number the insurance company wanted to record Manohar's height and weight. This information was already furnished in person to the company's agent. Manohar died on June 6, 2005 and the letter requesting the details was received by the family only on June 10, 2005. In December 2005, the claim filed by the Patils was repudiated on the grounds that the contract had not concluded.      The insurance company argued before the commission that it had cancelled the proposal for want of submission of the required information and, hence, the contract between the parties was not concluded.      The commission, however, held that the proposal was underwritten and processed and policy was assigned to the proposal after accepting the first premium on account of policy.      The commission held that the insurance company's appeal had no merit and was filed only to protract and prolong the payable legitimate claim.      The commission dismissed the appeal.