State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ranjit Singh vs Lic Anoopgarh on 18 March, 2010
BEFORE
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH,
RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR
Appeal No. 431/2006
Ranjit
Singh S/o Shri Labh Singh, R/o Chak 13-A, Tehsil Anoopgarh, Distt.
Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
..Appellant-Complainant
VS
Life
Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office: 'Jeevan Jyoti', Near
New Bus Stand, Anoopgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
..Respondent-Non-applicant
Before:
Mr.
G.S. Hora, Presiding Member
Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member Present:
Mr. Rajesh Jain, counsel for the Appellant Mr. Vizzy Agarwal, counsel for the Respondent ORDER Dated: 18.03.2010 PER Mr. G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal arises out of order dated 16.2.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum (DCF), Sri Ganganagar whereby the complaint of the Complainant was dismissed.
Admittedly the Complainant had obtained a policy wherein accident benefit was also to be given. The Complainant slipped from stairs whereby he sustained serious injury on his right hand. He has produced a certificate from Medical Board of Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar which found 100% disability on the right upper limb. The sole question for consideration was whether 100% disability in one hand could entitle the Complainant to receive compensation as provided under Condition No. 10(4) of the policy. The said condition reads as under:
"The disability above referred to must be disability which is the result of an accident and must be total and permanent and such that there is neither then nor at any time thereafter any work, occupation or profession that the life assured can ever sufficiently do or follow to earn or obtain any wages, compensation or profit. Accident injuries which independently 2 of all other causes and within 120 days from the happening of such accident, result in the irrecoverable loss of the entire sight of both eyes or in the amputation of both hands at or above the wrists, or in the amputation of both feet at or above ankles, or in the amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above the ankle, shall also be deemed to constitute such disability."
It is clear from the above condition that the disability must be total and permanent or there should be amputation of both hands or amputation of both feet or amputation of one hand and one foot. In the instant case, the Complainant suffered injury on the right hand which resulted in 100% disability. It cannot be said that there was total and permanent disability. The expression of 'total and permanent disability' has to be seen with reference to the total disability of the body. If intention was to include one limb in the expression then II part of the condition would not have found place in the policy. Hon'ble the National Commission had an occasion to deal with a similar matter in LIC vs Ramesh Chandra (1997) II CPJ 45 (NC) wherein the following observations were made:
"The question is whether the amputation of right hand suffered by the Complainant is a specified event and constitute disability entitled to an accident benefit under Clause 10(a) of the policy bond. The accident benefit is available to the assured only if he is involved in an accident resulting in total and permanent disability as defined in Clause 10. The disability referred in the said clause must be disability which is the result of accident and must be total and permanent. The accidental injuries which independently of all other causes and within 120 days from happening of such accident result in the irrecoverable loss of the entire sight of both eyes or in the amputation of both hands at or above the wrists or in the amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above the wrist only constitute such disability. The case of the Complainant is not of the amputation of both hands at or above the wrist or in the amputation of feet at or above ankles. The case of the Complainant is the amputation of one hand at or above the wrist but that is not independently deemed to be a disability as is covered since the coverage in the clause is only in cases of amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above ankle. It bears repetition that the deeming clause constituting the disability will get attracted only if there was the amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or 3 above the ankle. If it is the amputation of one hand at or above wrist or the amputation of one foot at or above the ankle, then it does not by the fiction of the Clause 10(a) constitute disability."
Keeping in view the above observations, we find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Member Presiding Member Hira Lal