Can't Rewrite Insurance Contract On Unproven Call Recording, Says Gujarat Consumer Commission

The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by a Vapi-based doctor who accused an insurance company official of misleading him into buying a fire policy when he claims he had asked for cover against theft and burglary, holding that a policy contract cannot be rewritten on the strength of an unproven telephone recording.

A bench of Presiding Member A. C. Raval and Member P. R. Shah upheld an earlier order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Valsad, which had dismissed the complaint of Dr. Pratik J. Parmar, who runs Aadarash Clinic in Vapi along with his wife, both doctors by profession.

According to the complainant, an official of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Meenakumar Pillai, had approached him and suggested he insure the clinic premises. Acting on this, Parmar bought a policy in March 2016 for a sum insured of Rs. 1,02,11,000, later renewed for a further year. On the night of November 22, 2017, the clinic was burgled. Parmar informed the insurer and lodged an FIR, but his claim was rejected in February 2018 on the ground that the policy, described as a "Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy," did not cover theft or burglary.

Parmar's case rested largely on an alleged phone conversation with Pillai in December 2017, recorded on a CD, in which the official is claimed to have admitted that the complainant had asked for burglary cover but that a "misunderstanding" led to it being left out. The District Commission was not persuaded and dismissed the complaint in October 2020, prompting the present appeal.

Before the State Commission, advocate M. K. Dudhiya, appearing for Parmar, argued that the District Commission had misread the recorded conversation and ignored that the insurer never specifically denied the call or explained why no action was taken against Pillai, who, it was claimed, was later promoted.

Advocate K. S. Pathak, for the insurer, countered that the policy schedule clearly listed premiums only for fire, earthquake and storm-tempest-flood-inundation cover, with nothing paid towards theft or burglary. She submitted that the complainant and his wife, both highly educated professionals, could not credibly claim ignorance of what they had signed, and that the CD and its transcript were inadmissible for want of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Commission agreed with the insurer on every count. It noted that the policy schedule "nowhere reflects inclusion of burglary or theft cover nor does it disclose payment of any premium towards burglary or theft risk," and that beyond the disputed recording, there was "absolutely no documentary evidence on record" to show that theft cover had ever been sought. On the recording itself, the bench observed that "no certificate under Section 65B has been produced in the manner known to law" and that neither its authenticity nor the speaker's voice had been independently established.

The Commission was also critical of the complainant's decision not to make Pillai a party despite levelling serious allegations against him, holding that "principles of natural justice require that a person against whom serious allegations are levelled should be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing." It further pointed to the discrepancy between the theft amount of Rs. 25,000 mentioned in the FIR and the higher sum claimed later, saying this created doubt about the "genuineness and credibility of the claim."

Rejecting the argument that the insurer's silence amounted to an admission, the Commission held that "even assuming, for argument's sake, that some conversation had taken place, the same by itself cannot alter the written terms and coverage of the insurance contract," since such contracts "are governed by written policy documents and not by subsequent oral assertions."

Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the District Commission's order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, directing that the amount earlier deposited be refunded to the appellant with accrued interest.

Case Title: Dr. Pratik J. Parmar vs. Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Date of Order: June 11, 2026

Bench: Presiding Member A. C. Raval and Member P. R. Shah