National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. M. Raja Gangu vs The Branch Manager, Life Insurance ... on 21 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3983 OF 2013 (From order dated 22.07.2013 in First Appeal No. 922 of 2012 of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) Smt. M. Raja Gangu W/o Venkat Krishna Reddy, R/o H. No. 4-4, Sunket Village of Morthad Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad Petitioner Versus The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch Armoor, District Nizamabad Respondent REVISION PETITION NO. 3984 OF 2013 (From order dated 22.07.2013 in First Appeal No. 923 of 2012 of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) Smt. M. Sujatha W/o Late Madhu Reddy, R/o H. No. 4-4, Sunket Village of Morthad Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad Petitioner Versus The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch Armoor, District Nizamabad Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhigya, Advocate with Ms. Medhi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. U. C. Mittal, Advocate Pronounced on 21st January, 2015 O R D E R
DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. This order shall decide above said two revision petitions. The facts are taken from Revision Petition No. 3983 of 2013.
2. Relevant facts in brief are that Sri Madhu Reddy (since deceased) took two insurance policies with accident benefits from the OP- LIC of India, Armoor, Branch, (A.P.) valid from 28.05.1999 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- where nominee was his mother Smt M.Raja Gangu and another policy for Rs.20,00,000/- where nominee was his wife Smt.Sujata. During the subsistence of the said policy; Madhu Reddy died in a motor vehicle accident on 21.3.2010. Both the nominees filed claim before the OP, but the OP paid part of the claims and denied the accident benefits in both the policies on the ground that the deceased was under influence of alcohol. Hence, Complaint No.24/2011 was filed by M.Raja Gangu( mother of deceased) and a Complaint No. 25/2011 was filed by Smt Sujata (wife of deceased) before the District Forum for claiming the accident benefit and proper compensation.
3. The District Forum, Nizamabad allowed both the complaints and in CC 24/2011 directed the OP to pay Smt. M.Raja Gangu the accident benefit of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @9% per annum, along with Rs.2,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/-, as costs whereas in CC 25/2011 it directed the OP to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to the wife of deceased the complainant Smt.Sujata .
4. Against this order, the OP filed the first appeal before the State Commission of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The State Commission reversed the order and dismissed the complaints. Hence, aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainants/petitioners filed these two revision petitions.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that there is no proper evidence regarding consumption of alcohol. The FSL report is also not conclusive. The cause of death given by Medical Superintendent of District Hospital, Nizamabad was Head injury and intracranial bleed under Ethyl Alcohol intoxication.
He also submitted that the OP has given false statement in their counter affidavit, which is reproduced as follows:
It is submitted that it is an admitted case that deceased insured consumed alcohol at the time of the driving. From the final report submitted by Forensic Laboratory Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhaman Parishad it is well proved that deceased insured consumed alcohol excessive to the prescribed limits at the time of driving, so the same caused to lose control on driving the vehicle and was unable to drive and thus met with an accident causing him head injury and intra cranial bleed and succumbed to death accordingly. All other allegations made by the appellant against the same are wrong and incorrect.
6. The rival argument by the learned counsel for the OP is that, there is delay of 17 days in filing this revision petition. It should not be condoned. He further argued on merits, that the deceased was found to be intoxicated, as per final death report and FSL report. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of both the revisions.
7. The delay is condoned. We have asked the learned counsel for the opposite party about the details of quantification of Ethyl Alcohol intoxication in the FSL report. The FSL report did not show any quantification or concentration of Alcohol but, the counsel vehemently argued that the report mentions about presence of Ethyl Alcohol in the organs (Item 1 and 2 of the viscera from post mortem). He further contended that the provision laid down in Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, about alcohol concentration, is not applicable in this case. It has vitiated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the claim should not be allowed.
8. To get clarity in this case, we have requisitioned the lower fora record and perused the FSL report. It is very surprising to note that the doctor who performed PM had not sent the blood sample from the dead body for analysis for Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC). He took only samples as Item 1- the stomach and a piece of intestine and as Item-2 piece of liver and kidney which were sent to the FSL. The FSL report given after analysis is reproduced as below:
Item 1 and 2 are analysed and Ethyl alcohol is found in both of them. No other poisonous substance is found in them
9. In our view, it was not a conclusive report from the FSL. It leads us nowhere. There was no mention of any alcohol concentration so that we can decide whether the person was Intoxicated or not? We have perused several literature and medical texts in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, which have clearly defined about the effects of different concentration of alcohol. It is pertinent to note that as per medical text, the alcohol concentration up to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood is tolerable; such person will not show any signs of intoxication.
10. Intoxication is perceived as a state of mind in which a person loses self-control and his ability to judge. As per Sections 185 and 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it would be considered intoxicated only if the person is tested and found to have more than 30 mg of alcohol in his blood, per 100 ml. In the present case, except for a mere noting in the Final Opinion Report and the FSL report, no test had been done to ascertain whether Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) had exceeded the legally stipulated limit. The mere smell of alcohol or presence of ethyle alcohol in the tissue samples cannot lead to an inference that a person is incapable of taking care of himself.
11. We are unable to get convinced, that the deceased person was in intoxicated state of alcohol. Further, the OP filed a counter affidavit which appears to be misleading about the concentration of alcohol. In this context, we place reliance upon the judgment of this Commission passed in the Revision Petition 2481-82 of 2013 titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Sheela & Ors.
The Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No 26791-92 of 2014 preferred by United India Insurance Co. was dismissed by Honble Supreme Court, on 8.10.2014 .
Another judgment passed in Revision Petition 3934/2013 decided on 1/12/2013 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Achala Rudraniwas Marde also dovetails with our view.
12. It should be borne in mind that, a person cannot be said to be intoxicated unless alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit which can only be confirmed through Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) is most commonly used as a metric of alcohol intoxication for legal or medical purposes. Therefore, the State Commissions observations appear to be unscientific one.
13. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the LIC of India (OP). Therefore, we disagree with the order passed by the State Commission.
Hence, we set it aside and restore the orders of District Forum. Both the revision petitions are allowed. The OP is directed to comply with this order, within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; otherwise, it will carry further interest @ 9% per annum, till its realization. There will be no order as to costs.
...Sd/-
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ...Sd/-
(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Naresh/