Page 52 - Insurance Times December 2018

14.4 Insured have also not been able to substantiate clause 4.3” packing shall be deemed to include
and prove their claim nor they have been able to stowage in a container or liftvan but only when
provide the correct Product Identification, correct such stowage is carried prior to attachment of this
Product MSDS and also not provided the Product insurance or by the Assured of their servants).
Stability characteristics, Stoichiometry, Product The Menthol USP was mentioned on the Labels
Literature, Product R&D data. Further no firm affixed on the Drums contained in the
grounds of rejection by consignee have been consignment. As per MSDS provided, Menthol is
provided, no tests have been carried out by the supposed to be carried in a Refrigerated vessel
consignee and no visual fire effect has been found
which was not done. Further Menthol USP is not
anywhere on the container, drums and the a licensed product of Nectar and they have
material contained in the subject consignment.
actually shipped Menthol in Liquid form whereas
14.5 Insured also have not been able to conclusively the shipping documents sent by them showed it
establish the root cause of the alleged loss / to be Menthol USP.
damage.
4.4. loss-damage or expense caused by inherent vice
14.6 The Insured have also not been able to prove that or nature of the subject-matter insured.
the loss is covered under the Policy terms and The actual product shipped had some inherent
conditions and hence as the loss is not admissible vice, since the insured, themselves have admitted
and as there is large un-clarity of the product that they were after the surveyor for giving them
shipped as well as reprocessing cost documents, the permission to quickly reprocess the returned
input output details and expenses incurred
consignment, since the quality of the same is
supporting documents have not been submitted, getting deteriorated with the passage of time.
we have not gone into the loss assessment on
reprocessing basis.” Even though 2 years shelf life guaranteed by the
Insured had not been over, still by their own
(e) As regarding the cause of loss, the surveyor made the admission, even though 2 years were still not
following remarks in the concluding part of 13.2.6
over, they have alleged that with time, the quality
“The purity of samples collected by the surveyor post is going down, which clearly is an admission by
the return of the consignments showed a continuous the insured that the product is having an inherent
decline. According to the insured, this is due to inherent vice and that with time delay, it is deteriorating,
characteristic of product that once it degrades a little, whereas the Shelf Life had been guaranteed by
the process continues and the purity continues to Nectar for a period of 2 years from the date of
decline. As per our independent assessment the alleged manufacturing.
decline of quality cannot be attributed to the fire on (g) I have gone through the Surveyor’s Report dated
the ship. So the alleged quality loss is due to either non- 04.09.2018 carefully and find no reason to disagree
use of refrigerated container as applicable for Menthol
with the conclusion reached by the surveyor. Therefore,
USP consignments or it was some inherent vice of the after consideration of the Survey Report submitted by
product itself, which has led to the quality loss over a the Surveyor Rakesh Narula (SLA-6064), IRDAI, in
period of time.” exercise of the powers under section 64 UM(6) of
(f) The relevant exclusions of the insurance policy are also Insurance Act, 1938, decides that the Claim is not
reproduced by the surveyor at 14.7, as follows: - payable. Accordingly, the Insurer is directed to comply
4. In no case shall this insurance cover with this direction immediately, and issue the necessary
4.3. loss-damage or expense caused by insufficiency communication to the Insured.
or unsuitability of packing or preparation of the (P.J.Joseph)
subject-matter insured (for the purpose of this Member (Non-Life)

!! Hearty Congratulations !!

Thanks readers for excellent response for our Insurance Quiz published in our November 2018 issue. This month the
lucky winners of the Quiz is Deepak Gujara & Dilip Bhati.
Who will be the next?????

52 The Insurance Times, December 2018