Leehan Retails Private Limited — Complaint for selling outdated insurance policy of syska gadget secure and rejection of claim

Address:	Pune, Maharashtra, 400068
Website:	syskagadgetsecure.com

I Riddhi Sanghavi, had bought a new phone OPPO A51w Mirror 5 from Anupam Stores, Borivali west, Mumbai, Maharashtra on October 24, 2015. Along with this phone I was suggested by the shopkeeper to buy Syska Gadget secure insurance. So I even bought the insurance by paying the premium of Rs. 899/- I was given a booklet along with the insurance which gave the details of the policy. In the booklet on page number 17 it was written that a new phone of equivalent value or similar specification would be given in case of total loss, theft and burglary. The shopkeeper fulfilled all the procedure required for the activation of the insurance in my cell phone and registered by email id with the Syska Gadget secure.
Someone snatched my cell phone from my bag on July 8, 2016. On reading the specification mentioned in the booklet I called the toll free number[protected] and lodged a claim request. My claim identification number is [protected]. Upon discussion with the executive undertaking the claim specifications I came to know that I would be given only 50% of the invoice value as claim against insurance. I was given a policy according to which I should be given new phone of equivalent value or rather 90% of the invoice value. As there was a disconnect over the issue I wrote a mail on July 8, 2016 to [protected]@syskagadgetsecure.com describing the entire issue that it was not my mistake that I was given a policy which got changed long back in July 2015. If the shopkeeper had sold a wrong policy then syska should have rejected the activation and contacted the shopkeeper or the policy holder. But neither did Syska contact the shopkeeper or the policy holder nor did it stop the activation of the policy. In that case the old policy still holds valid due to inaction of Syska Gadget Secure. So all the terms and conditions as per the old policy will prevail.
I got a revert from [protected]@syskagadgetsecure.com on July 10, 2016 stating that my claim has been rejected by the validation and Scrutiny team on the grounds that the mobile is lost and there is no forceful / violent act involved. The meaning of theft is explained in the new policy as told to me by the customer care executive; whereas in the old policy booklet there are 12 exclusions but none of them talk about pickpocketing as termed by syska in the new policy as excluded. There are 4 points on theft under the head additional conditions in the booklet but even that does not speak about involvement of a forceful or violent act to qualify for theft. The old policy booklet has 18 FAQ's but none describe about theft, its inclusions or exclusions as elaborated on the website for the new policy. Further it no where mentions on the new booklet to refer their website for any further details or clarifications. All the grounds on which they propose to reject my claim are all baseless.