Feedback

Una Consumer Forum Dismisses Complaint Over Oppo Mobile Insurance Claim Due to Improper Handling

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Una, Himachal Pradesh, on September 28, 2024, dismissed a complaint filed by Anand Sharma against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company and other parties regarding the repudiation of an insurance claim for a damaged Oppo mobile phone. The forum found that the damage occurred due to the complainant's negligence, which fell under the exclusion clause of the insurance policy.

Case Background

The complainant, Anand Sharma, purchased an Oppo F7 mobile phone for ₹20,000 on July 13, 2018, financed through Bajaj Finance Ltd. (Opposite Party No.1) and insured by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2) under an "All Risk Policy" for a one-year period. The insurance premium was paid in monthly installments of ₹185.

On May 27, 2019, the complainant’s phone was damaged. He lodged a claim with Bajaj Allianz, which directed him to the authorized service center for a repair estimate. The repair cost of ₹26,233 was submitted to the insurer. However, the claim was repudiated on June 18, 2019, citing "poor care and gross negligence".

Arguments by the Complainant

1. Comprehensive Coverage: The complainant argued that the "All Risk Policy" covered all types of damage, including accidental damage.
2. Illegal Repudiation: He contended that the insurer's refusal to honor the claim was unjustified and amounted to a deficiency in service.
3. Financial and Mental Agony: The complainant sought compensation for the financial loss and mental distress caused by the repudiation.

Defense by Opposite Parties

Bajaj Finance Ltd. (Opposite Party No.1):

• Argued that it was only a financier and had no role in the insurance process or the claim decision.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance (Opposite Party No.2):

• Claimed that the damage was caused due to improper handling and gross negligence, which fell under the exclusion clause of the insurance policy.
• Highlighted the complainant’s admission in the claim form that he had placed the phone on the car bumper and forgotten it, leading to the damage.

Oppo Mobile India and Shalimar Enterprises (Opposite Parties No.3 and No.4):

• Did not file a response and were proceeded against ex parte.

Commission’s Findings

The forum, presided over by D.R. Thakur and Minakshi Rana, dismissed the complaint, citing the following reasons:

Negligence by Complainant:

• The complainant admitted in the claim form that he had placed the phone on the car bumper and forgot it, leading to the phone being run over by the car. This act was deemed negligent and fell under the exclusion clause of the insurance policy.

Exclusion Clause:

• As per Clause 7 of the policy terms, the insurer was not liable for damage caused by "improper handling." The forum ruled that the complainant’s actions constituted improper handling.

No Manufacturing Defect:

• The forum noted that the complainant did not allege any manufacturing defect against Oppo Mobile India (Opposite Party No.3), making the claim solely against the insurance provider.

All Risk Policy Terms:

• While the policy was an "All Risk Policy," the coverage was subject to terms and conditions, including exclusions for negligence and improper handling.

Justified Repudiation:

• The forum concluded that the insurer had appropriately repudiated the claim, and there was no deficiency in service.

Judgment

The consumer forum dismissed the complaint, stating that:

1. The complainant’s negligence caused the damage, which fell outside the scope of the insurance coverage.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance was justified in repudiating the claim based on the policy’s exclusion clause.

No costs were awarded in the case.

Implications of the Case

This ruling highlights the importance of understanding the terms and conditions of insurance policies, particularly exclusion clauses. It serves as a reminder for consumers to exercise due care in handling insured items, as negligence may void coverage.