2019 (5) TMI 1218 - SC - Indian Laws

Insurance against burglary and/or house breaking - loss or damage was caused without forcible and violent entry to and/or exit from the premises - case of appellant is that conditions of exclusion under the policy document were not handed over to the appellant by the insurer and in the absence of the appellant being made aware of the terms of the exclusion, it is not open to the insurer to rely upon the exclusionary clauses - HELD THAT - The District Forum came to a specific finding of fact that the insurer did not furnish the terms and conditions of the exclusion and special conditions to the appellant and hence, they were not binding. When the case traveled to the SCDRC, there was a finding of fact again that the conditions of exclusion were not supplied to the complainant. The NCDRC missed the concurrent findings of both the District Forum and the SCDRC that the terms of exclusion were not made known to the insured. If those conditions were not made known to the insured, as is the concurrent finding, there was no occasion for the NCDRC to render a decision on the effect of such an exclusion - the NCDRC was in error in reversing the decisions of the District Forum and the SCDRC which were grounded on a pure finding of fact that the terms of exclusion were not made known to the insured. The order passed by the District Forum shall accordingly, stand restored - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exclusionary clauses in an insurance policy.
2. Communication of exclusionary conditions to the insured.
3. Reversal of decisions by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Interpretation of Exclusionary Clauses:
The Supreme Court analyzed a case where the NCDRC reversed decisions by lower consumer dispute forums regarding an insurance claim for theft. The NCDRC based its decision on a Supreme Court ruling that stated for a claim to be valid under an insurance policy against burglary, the theft must involve forcible and violent entry or exit. The Court examined the specific exclusion clauses in the policy and determined that the loss in this case did not meet the criteria for coverage as there was no evidence of forcible entry. The Court emphasized the importance of meeting the policy conditions for a valid claim.

Communication of Exclusionary Conditions:
The appellant argued that the exclusionary clauses under the policy were not communicated by the insurer, making it unfair for the insurer to rely on them to repudiate the claim. The District Forum and SCDRC both found that the exclusion terms were not provided to the insured, rendering them non-binding. The NCDRC, however, overlooked this crucial fact while reversing the decisions. The Court emphasized that if exclusion conditions were not communicated to the insured, as per the findings of the lower forums, the NCDRC had no basis to rule on the impact of such exclusions. The Court highlighted the significance of ensuring that insured parties are made aware of all exclusionary clauses in their policies.

Reversal of NCDRC Decisions:
The Supreme Court found that the NCDRC erred in reversing the decisions of the lower forums without considering the crucial fact that exclusionary conditions were not communicated to the insured. The Court clarified that the law regarding exclusion clauses in insurance policies would apply only if the insured party was aware of such conditions. Since the terms of exclusion were not communicated in this case, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCDRC's judgment and restoring the decision of the District Forum. The Court emphasized the importance of factual findings and proper communication of policy terms to insured parties for a fair resolution of insurance claims.