Insurance Claim
Brackish Water Prawn Insurance Policy—Compensation—Entitlement—Insurance company chose to repudiate the appellant’s claim in its entirety, basing on the wholly unfounded assertion that appellant had failed to maintain and provide proper records—Clear finding of earlier surveyors that total loss was suffered by appellant—Having attached great importance to the death certificate given by the MPEDA/State Fisheries Department in its policy and its prescribed claim procedure, the insurance company baldly brushed aside the Death Certificate furnished by the officials of the State Fisheries Department at Visakhapatnam—Merely because the contents thereof were not to its liking, the insurance company could not have ignored the same and swept it under the carpet—More so, as such certification was being made by impartial and independent bodies of significant stature and that, perhaps, was precisely the reason why the insurance company had attached such importance to it in its norms—In any event, it is not open to an insurance company to ignore or fail to act upon a certificate or document that it had itself called for from independent and impartial authorities, subject to just exceptions, merely because it is averse to it or to its detriment—Having undertaken to indemnify an insured against possible loss in specified situations, an insurance company is expected to make good on its promise in a bona fide and fair manner and not just care for and cater to its own profits—Action of insurance company in refusing to act upon the death certificate issued by the Directorate of Fisheries, cannot be countenanced—Appellant would be entitled to lowest of three valuations—Delay on the part of the insurance company in settling the appellant’s claim fairly and in a timely manner warrants that it pays interest on the amount due and payable to the appellant in terms of this order—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 13 & 14]