Fallacy of Equivocation

The Fallacy arises due to ambiguous use of a word or a phrase in an argument. A word or a phrase is equivocal when it can be understood in two or more senses. [1]

Example: The NCDRC Bench analysed the facts and stated that the term ‘owner – driver’ is in itself ambiguous and unclear. In case it was meant to construe only the owner-cum-driver herself driving, the same should have been unambiguously and clearly stated in the insurance policy. As would appear to a reasonable person, the proposition intended to be conveyed and understood was that the owner, as well as the driver, will be covered under the policy. The National Commission added that the onus was on the insurance company to make its terms and conditions unambiguous and clear, at the time of selling the policy to the consumers. Having included the ambiguous term in the policy, NCDRC opined that the insurance company was not just guilty of deficiency of service but also of unfair trade practice. Further, the National Commission directed that the insurance company shall discontinue its unfair trade practice and shall make its term ‘owner – driver’ unambiguous and clear in its future insurance policies.[2]

[1] Basantani K T (2016), Elementary Logic , Sheth Publishers Pvt Ltd.,Mumbai (2016), pg 134

[2] https://www.consumer-voice.org/consumer-right-laws/ncdrc-raps-insurance-company-for-ambiguous-term/, Date visited 11 Jan 2021, Time 09:00pm