LAWS AND REGULATION OF

GENERAL INSURANCE

GROUP ASSIGNMENT

NAME ROLL NUMBER

KSHIRASAGAR PAWAN SHIVAJI 2325053

KUMAR ANAND RANJAN 2325054

M. AKSHAY MOHAN 2325055

MRUNMAYI NARKHEDE 2325056

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had to
make a decision in a case involving Shivalik Container Pvt. Ltd. and the
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. This decision was influenced by a
previous judgment from the Supreme Court in a case called "Sri
Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." This previous
judgment served as a reference point for the NCDRC. The main issue in
both cases was about how insurance companies handle and settle insurance
claims. The NCDRC had to decide whether the way the insurance
company (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) was handling Shivalik
Container's claim was correct, and they looked at the earlier Supreme
Court judgment to help them make their decision.

Now, in my opinion, the NCDRC's decision got some things right and
some things wrong when applying the Supreme Court judgment to this
case. There were certain aspects where they interpreted and used the
Supreme Court's guidance correctly, but there may have been some areas
where they could have made better choices in their interpretation and
application of that guidance.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)

correctly understood and applied some key principles from the Supreme
Court (SC) judgment. These principles were:
 About the roles of insurance surveyors in assessing insurance claims.
They examine the damage or loss and provide a report.
 Insurance companies have the right to disagree with the surveyor's
report if they have valid reasons to do so. This means they can have
a different opinion about the damage or loss.
 If the insurance company disagrees with the first surveyor and has a
good reason, they can appoint a second surveyor to reevaluate the
situation.
 The insurance company must provide valid and clear reasons for
rejecting the initial surveyor's report. They can't just reject it without
explaining why.
However, there are certain areas where the NCDRC's decision might be
subject to interpretation and analysis:
 While the NCDRC seemed to correctly use the rules from the
Supreme Court judgment, they didn't look deeply into why the
insurance company didn't appoint a second surveyor, or what the
insurance company had to say about it. It is important to figure out if
the decision not to use a second surveyor was fair or not, and that
aspect needs more investigation.
 The NCDRC's decision should have been clearer about the insurer's
role to disagree with the surveyor's report and bring in another
surveyor if needed. The decision didn't make it very clear that the
insurer shouldn't make their own assessment of the loss. If this
limitation had been explained more clearly, it would have helped
people understand what the insurer can and cannot do in this
situation.
 The NCDRC agreed with the surveyor's evaluation of the loss, but it
didn't thoroughly examine whether the surveyor's assessment was
correct or whether the insurer's different assessment was valid. It
would have been better if the decision had given a more detailed
explanation, especially when it comes to the technical aspects, to
clarify why they believed one assessment over the other. This would
have made the decision more substantial and informative.

The NCDRC's decision is partially correct as it correctly interprets and

applies the principles outlined in the SC judgment. It recognizes the
insurer's right to disagree with the surveyor's report and appoint another
surveyor for assessment. However, there are some parts of the decision
that could be improved. For example, it doesn't thoroughly examine
whether the suggestion to use a second surveyor was valid or justified.
Additionally, it could have been clearer about what the insurance company
can and cannot do in such cases. More in-depth analysis and better
explanations in these areas would have made the decision even better.