MANOHAR DEVI vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE District Forum, Udaipur had dismissed the claim filed by the complainant mainly on two grounds. THE first ground taken is that the insurance policy provides that the risk thereunder will commence after 15 days and since the cow had died before 15 days of the commencement of the policy, the complainant could not claim indemnification. Second ground on which the claim was disallowed was that the complaint was filed more than 12 months after repudiation.

IN respect of the first ground the District Forum relied upon a decision of Haryana State Commission reported in I (1992) CPJ 192. It appears that in Haryana case there was a exclusion clause in the policy to the effect that any disease suffered by the insured person during the first thirty days from the commencement date of the policy would not be covered. IN view of certain exclusionary clause, it was held that this was inserted against possible malpractice of person taking out a mediclaim policy when he is already suffering a disease. Suffice it to state that the present was not a mediclaim policy and therefore this decision should not have been relied by the District Forum. There is no exclusionary clause in the policy in question. The policy clearly goes to show that its period of operation was from 1st July, 1988 to 30th June, 1989. Having specified the period of insurance, the INsurance Co. could not postponed the commencement of the risk covered and it was liable true case the death of the cattle insured occurred during the currency of the policy. On the question of limitation the District Forum referred to some decisions of Orissa and Gujarat State Commission. In case of Sahin Screen Printers v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. II (1992) CPJ 582, it was held by the Orissa State Commission that there was a clause in the Insurance policy that in no case whatsoever shall be company, be liable for any loss of damage after the expiration of 12 months from the happening of the loss or damage unless the claim is the subject of pending action or arbitration. In Gujarat case reported in (1992) 1 CPR 749 M/s. Paras Textiles v. United India Insurance Co. Clause 12 in the Insurance Policy provided that it was agreed that if the company disclaim liability to the insured for any claim and such claim shall not within 12 calendar months from the date of such disclaimer have been made the subject matter of a suit in a Court of Law, then claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned. I am of the view that such type of clauses by no stretch of imagination lay down in law of limitation. The limitation provided in law cannot be curtail by such sort of clauses in a Insurance Policy. The limitation period under the Limitation Act was clearly three years. It might be that the Insurance Company may not entertained a claim for consideration and investigation which might have been preferred before it after 12 months or may treated as abandoned, but that does not preclude the claimant from coming to the Court and claiming the indemnity clause in the Insurance Policy within limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act. The complainant was filed within limitation. On both points the order of the District Forum is erroneous and is reversed.

No other point was urged before me, I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, Udaipur and remand the complaint to the District Forum, Udaipur to restore the complaint to its original number and to decide the complaint on its merit in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 10th May, 1994. The file of the District Forum alongwith the copy of this order be returned. Appeal allowed.