The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, comprising A.C. Raval (Presiding Member) and P.R. Shah (Member), upheld the dismissal of a consumer complaint against Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., holding that an insurer cannot be compelled to indemnify theft or burglary losses when the insurance policy does not cover such risks. The Commission further held that written policy terms cannot be overridden by alleged oral assurances or electronic evidence that is inadmissible in law.

Brief Facts

The complainant, Dr. Pratik J. Parmar, operated a dental and cardiac clinic. To secure the clinic, he obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. through an officer, Mr. Meenakumar Pillai. During the policy period, a burglary occurred at the clinic on November 22, 2017. When the complainant lodged an insurance claim, the insurer repudiated it on the ground that the policy did not cover theft or burglary.

The complainant alleged that the insurance officer later admitted during a recorded telephonic conversation that theft coverage had been requested but was omitted from the policy due to a misunderstanding.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that the policy expressly covered only fire, STFI and earthquake risks and that there was no evidence to establish that burglary or theft cover had been purchased. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant preferred the present appeal before the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Contentions of the Insurance Company

The insurer contended that the policy covered only fire, STFI and earthquake risks and that no premium had been paid for theft or burglary cover. It further argued that the alleged audio recording was inadmissible in evidence for want of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and that the written terms of the insurance policy could not be altered by oral assurances.

Observation and Decision

The State Commission observed that the insurance policy expressly covered only fire, STFI and earthquake risks and did not include theft or burglary. It held that the complainant failed to establish that he had sought or paid any premium for burglary or theft coverage. The Commission further found that the alleged telephonic recording was inadmissible in evidence for non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and that its authenticity had not been established through independent or forensic evidence.

The Commission also noted that the complainant had not impleaded the insurance officer against whom serious allegations were made, thereby denying him an opportunity to respond. It further observed that the complainant neither objected to the policy during the free-look period nor at the time of renewal, indicating acceptance of its terms. Reiterating that the liability of an insurer is strictly governed by the written terms of the insurance contract and that Consumer Fora cannot rewrite or enlarge the scope of coverage, the Commission held that an insurer cannot be compelled to indemnify losses arising from risks for which no premium was paid.

Finding no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the District Commission's order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated October 13, 2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. No order as to costs was made.

Case No.: Appeal No. 99 of 2021

Case Title: Dr. Pratik J. Parmar v. Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Click Here To Read/Download Order