State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pancard Clubs Ltd. vs Smt Shalan Tanaji Kshirsagar &Anr; on 31 October, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. FA/12/913
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 27/06/2012 in Case No. 577/2008 of District Thane)
1. PANCARD CLUBS LTD.
110-113 KALIANDAS UDYOG BHAVAN NEAR CENTURI BAZAR
PRABHADEVI
MUMBAI - 400025
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SMT SHALAN TANAJI KSHIRSAGAR
AT& POST KALHER ROOM NO 4 GHAR NO 186 TAL
BHIWANDI
DIST.THANE
MAHARASHTRA
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
MUMBAI DIVISION,D.O.110800/615, SHRI PANT BHAVAN
CHOWPATTY, MUMBAI-400 007 FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS,THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO.LTD.SHIVKRUPA BUILDING, NAUPADA, GOKHALE ROAD, THANE
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan PRESIDENT
HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate along with Mr.Anand
Singh-Advocate
......for the Appellant
Mr.S.D.Tigde-Advocate for respondent no.1
Mrs.Kalpana Trivedi-Advocate for respondent no.2.
ORDER
Per Honble Mr.Justice R.C.Chavan, President Heard Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate along with Mr.Anand Singh-Advocate for the appellant, Mr.S.D.Tigde-Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mrs.Kalpana Trivedi-Advocate for respondent no.2.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no.577/2008, whereby forum allowed the complaint of respondent no.1 against the appellant and directed appellant to pay a sum of `50,000/- with interest along with compensation of `10,000/- and costs of `5,000/-.
The facts which are necessary for deciding this appeal are indeed unfortunate. Complainants husband -Mr.Tanaji Shivaji Kshirsagar applied for membership of appellant Club on 12/04/2008. Appellant Club had bundled with club membership a personal accident death insurance coverage under which in the event of death a sum of `50,000/- was payable.
Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the New Royal Holiday Package which the complainants husband had taken clearly stipulated that the risk coverage shall commence after 30 days from the insurance commencement date as mentioned in the New Royal Holiday certificate subject to availability of birth certificate, etc. The New Royal Holiday certificate which is issued shows the date of commencement of the personal accident death insurance as 18/05/2008. However, before this date on 24/04/2008 itself complainants husband died of acute myocardial infarction while driving his auto. Since the respondent/insurance company and the appellant club shirked their responsibility to pay the amount due under the insurance scheme, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum which was contested by the insurance company as well as appellant club.
After considering the material before it, forum came to the conclusion that the condition of membership, namely, that the insurance would become effective 30 days after the membership, was printed in fine print on reverse side of the form on which the complainants husband had not put his signature and, therefore, condition could not be enforced against the complainant. The forum however held that the insurance company was not liable since before the date of issuance of the insurance policy, concerned person had already expired and, therefore, there was no question of issuing life cover for one who was already dead. Therefore, it absolved the insurance company and saddled the responsibility to pay the amount on the appellant club. Aggrieved thereby, appellant club is before us.
We have heard both the counsel for the appellant club as well as original complainant and Insurance Company. Learned counsel has also made available for our perusal application for membership signed by the complainants husband and the terms and conditions of the New Royal Holiday Package. It is true that the condition about risk coverage is not printed in bold font or in a font of big size, but it is readable. It is not in so fine print that a person with normal eye sight could not read it. Complainants husband seems to be an English knowing person since he had signed in English. There is declaration by the complainants husband below the application form wherein he has stated that, I declare that I have read and understood the terms and conditions.
The terms and conditions have been explained to me in a language known to me. I hereby agree to abide by these terms and conditions. I declare that the information given above is true and correct. He has stated that he agreed to abide by these terms and conditions. It may have been open for an illiterate person or semi literate person to contend that he has not understood or read the conditions and in that case, responsibility would be on the appellant to explain as to whether the conditions were understood by the person who had signed the form. Here there is a literate husband of the complainant who had signed the form after making specific declaration that he had read the terms and conditions. Therefore, it was not open for the forum to conclude that the conditions printed in fine print could not have been understood by the victim.
Likewise, simply because the victim had not signed the terms and conditions on the reverse side of the form, it does not absolve him of requirement to abide by the conditions in the face of his declaration that he had read those conditions. Therefore, conclusion drawn by the forum on this ground is unsustainable.
It is also significant to note that the victim did not die of any accident. He died of acute myocardial infarction. The insurance cover provided was accidental death insurance cover. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submits that heart attack is also an accident of life and, therefore, death by acute myocardial infarction could be taken to be accidental death. He submits that under the Workmen Compensation Act such is the provision. We are not dealing with the liability under the Workmen Compensation Act.
In ordinary course, death by acute myocardial infarction would have to be treated as natural death and not an accidental death, though in common parlance some people may call such a death as an accident of life. Therefore, even on this count, since the death was not accidental death, forum should have seen that the appellant was not liable to pay anything under the promised policy to the complainant.
In view of this, we find that the order passed by the forum is thoroughly unsustainable. We allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the forum. As we dismiss the complaint, we do not propose to saddle any costs on the respondent/org. complainant, in the peculiar unfortunate circumstances.
Pronounced on 31st October, 2013.
[HON'ABLE MR.
JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT [HON'ABLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.