PARVEEN SHARMA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petition No. 2198 of 2010 has been filed against the judgment dated 4 March 2010 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi ('the State Commission') in appeal No. 220 of 2009.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that petitioner had taken a house hold policy from the respondent opposite party which also provided insurance cover for his gold ornaments. On 27.12.2007 the petitioner left his house at Tilak Nagar along with gold ornaments which were supposed to be taken to Karol Bagh jewellery shop for polishing. He carried those gold ornaments in a small bag which was kept in a large bag properly zipped. The complainant before going to the shop of the jeweller went to Bawana Market for looking at a shop/premises for opening a laboratory. The complainant reached Bawana Market at 12.00 noon and an hour later the complainant noticed a cut on one side of the bag. The complainant thus, opened large bag and found that small bag containing his gold ornaments was missing. The complainant immediately rang up Police Control Room at Telephone No. 100 and intimated about the theft. Thereafter, FIR was registered being FIR No. 652 of 2007 under section 379 IPC on the same day. Intimation regarding theft of the gold ornaments was given to the insurance company on 28.12.2007. The respondent company appointed an investigator. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the investigator as also the insurance company. Despite that his insurance claim was not settled. Being aggrieved of failure of the insurance company to settle the insurance claim, the petitioner raised a consumer dispute in District Forum Janpath, New Delhi.

(3.) THE respondent insurance company resisted the claim. In the written statement, it was pleaded that insurance claim was rightly repudiated because it was found to be false. According to the respondent insurance company, the petitioner had initially obtained insurance policy valid upto 17.01.2007. The said policy, however, was not got renewed. After a lapse of about more than 10 months, the petitioner obtained fresh householder insurance policy with insurance cover for his gold ornaments. During the subsistence of the said policy, insurance claim for theft of ornaments was filed. The said claim was investigated through M/s. Delta Detectives and as per the report of the investigator, the claim was found to be false. Thus, it was repudiated. It was further alleged that petitioner did not cooperate with the investigator and failed to provide necessary documents and clarifications. This resulted in delay in processing of claim and the petitioner without waiting for the conclusion of the investigator, filed consumer complaint.