Shimla: The public sector mini-navratna Sutlej Jal Vidyut Nigam has received a whopping Rs.307 crore here in a claim settlement from the National Insurance Company on account of losses due to flooding of the power house of the countrys largest 1500-MW Nathpa Jhakri power project in 2005.
It is the countrys largest- ever claim settlement onshore, claimed the Chairman of National Insurance, V. Ramaswamy, in a media briefing here.
He formally handed over the cheque for Rs.307 crore to SJVN Managing Director H. K. Sharma and said it was done in record time.
The power station was insured through an industrial all-risk policy with National Insurance as a leader of the consortium of some other smaller public and private sector companies.
The power house was flooded on the night of September 4-5 and power generation came to a halt, resulting in power shortage in the Northern Grid. It was temporarily restored after 44 days. The insurance company had also made interim payments in November 2005 and March 2006 amounting to Rs.51 crore on account of damage to the equipment.
The company is paying a premium of about Rs.15 crore per year to the insurance companies.
Monday, May 26, 2008
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE APPEAL DISMISSED
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals of United Insurance Company which had refused to renew mediclaim policies in high claim cases of senior citizens.
The court stated that the company's denial was highly arbitrary. Though the insured were not entitled to automatic renewal, the public sector companies should have been fair. The claimants had been hospitalised repeatedly and the company declined to renew their insurance.
The court said: "Only because the insured had started suffering from a disease, the same would not mean that the said disease shall be excluded. If the insured had made some claim in each year, the insurance company should not refuse to renew insurance policies only for that reason."
The parties are not required to go into all the formalities. Since the policy contemplates terms for renewal, it cannot be placed at par with a case of first contract.
The court stated that the company's denial was highly arbitrary. Though the insured were not entitled to automatic renewal, the public sector companies should have been fair. The claimants had been hospitalised repeatedly and the company declined to renew their insurance.
The court said: "Only because the insured had started suffering from a disease, the same would not mean that the said disease shall be excluded. If the insured had made some claim in each year, the insurance company should not refuse to renew insurance policies only for that reason."
The parties are not required to go into all the formalities. Since the policy contemplates terms for renewal, it cannot be placed at par with a case of first contract.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
