CCI dismisses complaint against Oriental Insurance Company

The Competition Commission Friday dismissed complaint against Oriental Insurance Company over alleged abuse of dominant position.

The complaint was filed by Anil Rathi, partner of Bahadurgarh-based Laxmi Polymers, who had taken fire insurance policy from Oriental Insurance for the firm.

Owing to storage of volatile material and use of high tension wires at the premises, a "Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy" was availed for the firm to cover the risk in case of any adversity, the complainant said.

As per the complainant, on the intervening night of 20/21 December 2016, a fire broke out on the premises of the firm and pursuant to the loss occurred on account of fire, an insurance claim was lodged with Oriental Insurance.

However, the insurance company rejected the claim on the ground that the firm was in breach of certain conditions mentioned in the policy.

Besides, while rejecting the insurance claim, no objection certificate given by the fire department of Bahadurgarh was completely ignored, the complainant alleged.

Moreover, the complainant alleged that the survey report done by the insurance company to assess the loss was also not shared with him.

The manner in which the insurance claim was rejected shows that Oriental Insurance abused its dominant position under Section 4 of the Competiton Act, the complainant alleged.

For the case, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) considered "market for provision of fire insurance services in India," as relevant one.

The fair-trade regulator said that with 25 general insurers offering fire insurance policies, the market for non-life insurance is competitive.

Considering that Oriental Insurance enjoyed only 8.6 per cent market share during 2017-18, the company cannot be said to be in a dominant position, the CCI noted.

Since the company is not dominant in the relevant market, "the Commission does not propose to examine the allegations against it of having abused such position".

Accordingly, the matter is disposed of as there is no contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, it said.