State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jageer Singh vs Secretary, Co-Operative Sugarcane ... on 16 September, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 42 / 2012
Sh. Jageer Singh S/o Late Sh. Sarvan Singh
R/o Barkidandi, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udhamsingh Nagar
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. Secretary
Co-operative Sugarcane Development Society Ltd.
Sitarganj, District Udhamsingh Nagar
2. Branch Manager
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Khanchand Market, Nainital Road, Haldwani
District Nainital
......Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2
Sh. Sanjay Bhatt, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Vikas Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
Smt. Savita Sethi, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 16/09/2014
ORDER
(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):
Appellant/complainant-Sh. Jageer Singh has preferred this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the District Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar, whereby dismissing the consumer complaint No. 65 of 2009.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the opposite party No. 1 is a Secretary of Co-operative Sugarcane Development Society Ltd., Sitarganj, Udhamsingh Nagar and opposite party No. 2 is a Branch Manager of The New India Assurance Co.
2Ltd., Haldwani. The opposite party No. 1 had managed Group Personal Accident Insurance of the members of said society with the opposite party No. 2. The complainant's father Sh. Sarvan Singh was also insured for Rs. 2,00,000/- vide policy No. 420901/42/06/08/0000057 by opposite party No. 2. During the policy period, due to ill effect of the pesticides, the complainant's father died at C.H.C., Khatima. The complainant informed the opposite parties and the claim was submitted by him with the opposite party No. 2, but the same was repudiated by the opposite party No. 2- insurance company. According to the complainant, his father died during work in agricultural field by ill effect of pesticides, which is covered in the policy. The complainant sent notice to the opposite parties on 30.03.2009, but all went in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar.
3. The opposite party No. 1 filed written statement before the District Forum and admitted the fact that the complainant's father Sh. Sarvan Singh was insured for Rs. 2,00,000/- through Co-operative Sugarcane Development Society Ltd., Sitarganj by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the policy was issued for the same. The opposite party No. 1 forwarded the complainant's claim to opposite party No. 2-insurance company. The opposite party No. 2 had informed on 19.01.2009 that the complainant's father had died after consuming some poison, which is not covered in the policy, therefore, the complainant's claim was repudiated. The opposite party No. 1 is not negligent to forward complainant's claim to the opposite party No. 2.
4. The opposite party No. 2 filed written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations made by the complainant. It was stated in the written statement that the father of the complainant had died after consumption of some poison, which is not covered in Group Personal Accident Insurance policy. The opposite party No. 2 had found that Sh. Sarvan Singh, a farmer, died due to consumption of some poison, which is based on Panchnama (inquest) and on the basis of investigation report. The 3 claim of the complainant was repudiated under the terms and conditions of the policy and information was sent to the complainant and opposite party No. 1.
5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 22.02.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant-appellant has filed the present appeal before this Commission.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
7. The complainant has stated in the consumer complaint that while sprinkling pesticides in the agricultural field, his father Sh. Sarvan Singh fainted and become ill. Sh. Sarvan Singh was taken to C.H.C., Khatima, where he died during the treatment. The complainant-Sh. Jageer Singh himself filed an affidavit in support of consumer complaint and two witnesses Sh. Harjinder Singh and Sh. Gurnaam Singh have also filed their affidavits in support of consumer complaint. According to the complainant, his ailing father was being taken to C.H.C., Khatima, where he died, but there is no document of C.H.C. to show that Sh. Sarvan Singh was admitted there for any ailment which was caused by the side-effect of any pesticide or it was a cause of consumption of some chemical or pesticide. There is no admission slip or OPD slip of C.H.C. to show the exact condition of Sh. Sarvan Singh while he was admitted at the C.H.C., Khatima. After death of Sh. Sarvan Singh, an inquest (Panchnama) was prepared in the presence of five Panchs and according to those members present at the time of Panchnama, death of Sh. Sarvan Singh was caused due to consumption of some chemical or pesticide. Nobody has said that it was a case of after-effect of some pesticides. The Post Mortem of the dead body of deceased Sh. Sarvan Singh was done and the cause of death was not ascertained. During Post Mortem, the viscera of the dead body was preserved by the doctor, but no forensic report submitted by the complainant in the District Forum, which could prove whether Sh. Sarvan 4 Singh died due to consumption of some chemical or pesticide or due to after-effect of some pesticide. The complainant has also not filed any evidence regarding the investigation done by the police and conclusion of the police, whether it was a case of suicide by consumption of some poisonous chemical or pesticide by the deceased or it was a simple case of after-effect of some pesticide.
8. Admittedly, the deceased Sh. Sarvan Singh died in the month of November, 2007, but according to the Secretary, Co-operative Sugarcane Development Society Ltd., Sitarganj-opposite party No. 1 Sh. Rama Shankar Shukla, who has filed his affidavit (Paper Nos. 39/1 to 39/3) in consumer complaint that there is no occasion to spread or sprinkle pesticides in the agricultural field during the month of November, because it is a time where the crop of sugarcane became ripe and in a position to harvest. So there is no need to spread such type of pesticides in the ripe crop of sugarcane. He has also stated on oath that the complainant's father Sh. Sarvan Singh never purchased any chemical or pesticide from the store of Respondent No. 1-Soceity, six month before his death to spread or sprinkle in sugarcane field. There is no evidence on the record that the father of the complainant had died on account of after-effect of some pesticide while he was spreading some pesticide in the sugarcane field, rather it was a case of suspected consumption of sulphas poison, as per document (Paper No. 31). This shows that the complainant has not come in the Forum with clean hands.
9. The District Forum has observed in the impugned order that the complainant has neither submitted any slip of admission of the C.H.C., Khatima nor any document, regarding the cause shown by the complainant in the C.H.C. about the condition of his father, was filed in the Forum. According to the statement of the officer of the insurance company- opposite party No. 2, it was a case of suicide, due to consumption of some poisonous chemical and, therefore, this case does not come under Group Personal Accident Insurance Claim.
510. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-insurance company cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3932 of 2013; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Aparna Kahar decided on 29.08.2014, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has clearly held that as no external injuries were found on the body of the deceased insured and death was not accidental caused by external, visible and violent means, claim was not payable. The claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company. Learned counsel also cited a decision in the case of Meena Devi vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.; II (2012) CPJ 290 (NC), in which the Hon'ble National Commission has expressed its view that the insurance company was liable to compensate the insured only if the death or permanent total disablement or loss of limb, loss of eyes, etc. has occurred solely due to accident by external, visible and violent means. There is no evidence on record to show that the insured died as a result of accident caused by external, visible and violent means. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be held that the insured died due to accident. We agreed with the citations given by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-insurance company and these rulings are fully applicable in this case. As the cause of death was not ascertained during Post Mortem of deceased and there was no accident of Sh. Sarvan Singh caused by any external, visible and violent means. The District Forum has also opined that Sh. Sarvan Singh has not died due to some accident and no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties-respondents.
11. The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly dismissed the consumer complaint No.65 of 2009 vide impugned order dated 22.02.2012, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is fit to be upheld. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)