Appointment of Surveyor does not imply acceptance of claim

If the insurance claim is made late, it can be rejected even if the insurance company had appointed a surveyor to assess the damage, according to the Supreme Court. The survey is no evidence of waiver of the time limit by the insurer. It does not condone the delay made by the claimant, the court asserted in its judgment, Sonell Clocks & Gifts Ltd VS New India Assurance. In the case, the plant and machinery of the firm were damaged in a flood. It made the claim after about four months. The insurance company appointed a surveyor who reported that the due to the delay, the damage could not be assessed accurately. The claim was thus rejected on the ground of delay. This was challenged in the National Consumer Commission, which rejected the claim on the ground of delay. On appeal, it was argued by Sonell that the survey was implied consent to condone the delay. The insurer submitted that according to the insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Regulations, it was bound to appoint a surveyor when there was a claim. But that did not mean that the claim could be rejected on other grounds like delay. Sonell finally argued that the Consumer Protection Act should be read in a liberal manner, without insisting on technicalities, since it is a socially beneficial legislation. The court rejected it stating that the issue here was not technical but the heart of the matter and when there is a lapse, the policyholder must suffer the consequence.