In Brief
An insurance company issued a fire policy to a shop owner in a basement, but included an exclusion clause barring basement coverage. After a fire loss, the insurer repudiated the claim using this clause. The State Consumer Commission found the clause unfair and awarded compensation, citing non-disclosure and deficient service. The National Commission reversed this, relying on the exclusion clause. The Supreme Court held that an exclusion clause destroying the contract's main purpose cannot be enforced, especially when the insurer knowingly covered the risk at inception. Non-compliance with disclosure regulations and the doctrine of acquiescence bar reliance on the clause. The Court set aside the National Commission's order and allowed the appeal, directing compensation as the Forum must grant adequate relief once unfair terms and deficiency are found.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.