Joyride is not a risky activity

The forum observed that a joyride under a trained pilot is neither banned nor illegal. It said the exclusion clause had been wrongly invoked

Hiren Joshi was insured under the Happy Family Floater Policy issued by Oriental Insurance. The policy, taken for the period November 20, 2014, to November 19, 2015, covered him, his wife and his dependent parents for Rs 6 lakh. When the policy was renewed in 2015-2016, an additional cover for personal accident was also taken.

In 2015-16, Joshi went on a honeymoon to Manali on a trip organised by Heena Tours & Travels. The tour included a joyride in an air parachute operated by a trained pilot. During the ride, due to a technical failure, the wing of the parachute closed and the pilot lost control, leading to a crash. Joshi suffered grievous injuries. He was initially admitted to Lady Willingdon Hospital in Kullu, then shifted on to Fortis Hospital and Cheema Hospital in Mohali, and finally treated in Borivali Orthopaedic Clinic.

When Joshi lodged a claim for Rs 6 lakh for medical coverage under the Happy Floater Policy and for accident benefit, it was rejected on the ground that he had participated in a risky sport excluded under the policy.

Joshi filed a complaint before the South Mumbai District Forum. Oriental Insurance contested the case, justifying that paragliding was a risky sport and excluded from the policy. An objection was also raised that the complaint was time-barred.

Advocate Ami Mandani, who appeared for Joshi, pointed out that the policy terms stated that coverage would not extend to a person who was ‘engaged in aviation or balloon or aircraft while mounting into, dismounting from travelling in any balloon or aircraft other than as bonafide passenger in any licensed standard type of aircraft anywhere in the world’. Mandani argued that this clause could be invoked only if Joshi had been operating the parachute himself, but it would not be applicable as he was a passenger enjoying a joyride being operated by a trained pilot. 

The forum observed that a joyride under a trained pilot was neither banned nor illegal, and disagreed with the insurer’s contention. It also pointed out that there was no negligence on the part of Joshi. It reasoned that Joshi was a passenger who had suffered an accident without being at fault. So it concluded that the exclusion clause of the policy had been wrongly invoked to reject the claim. It held the claim to be payable, both for medical expenses towards treatment, as well as the benefit for accidental injury.

The forum also observed that the date of the accident or lodging of the claim would be irrelevant, as limitation has to be computed from the date of repudiation of the claim. Since the complaint was filed within two years from the date of repudiation, the forum rejected the insurer’s objection and held that the complaint had been filed in time.

Accordingly, by its order of June 1, 2019, delivered by M P Kasar for the Bench presided over by Sneha Mhatre along with D S Paradkar, the forum ordered the insurance company to pay Rs 6 lakh for medical expenses and Rs 1.28 lakh for accident benefit together with three per cent interest from July 2, 2016 onwards. In addition, Rs 7,000 was awarded as compensation and Rs 3,000 as litigation costs.

The writer is a consumer activist