State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Girraj Prasad Meena vs United India Insurance Co. on 10 July, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR FIRST APPEAL NO: 1935/2011 Girraj Prasad Meena s/o Ramjilal Meena r/o Village Surajpura, Tehsil and District Dausa. ...Appellant/Complainant Vs. 1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai ( Tamilnadu ) Through General Manager. 2. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Sahara Chambers. Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3. Br.Manager,United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Kamaldeep, Jaipur Agra Road, Dausa. ...Respondents/ Non applicants Date of order 10.07.2012 Before: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashok Parihar- President Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra- Member
Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member Mr.Suman Sharma..........counsel for the appellant Mr.Amarnath Pareek.........counsel for the respondents 2 BY THE STATE COMMISSION
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the judgment dated 20.10.2011 of the learned District Consumer Forum, Dausa ( hereinafter referred to as ' the DCF' ) passed in complaint no. 50/2010, whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant's father Ramjilal took a Janta Personal Accident Policy from the respondent Insurance Company ( hereinafter referred to as ' the Insurance Company' ) on 29.01.1999 for Rs. 5 lacs for the period from 29.01.1999 to 28.01.2014. Complainant was the nominee in the aforesaid policy. While working in his fields, Ramjilal died on 13.03.2009 at 8.00 a.m. due to bite of a poisonous insect ( Gohra ). The complainant submitted the claim before the Insurance Company for the death of his father but his claim was not disposed off. The complainant's claim was not settled even after a notice through advocate and hence the complainant filed the complaint before the DCF, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.10.2011. The complainant preferred the present appeal and stated that despite the Panchnama and Death Certificates issued by the Govt. doctor and SDM, the learned DCF dismissed his complaint on the ground that no post-mortem was performed in the matter and no FIR was lodged by the complainant about the death of his father. The learned DCF erred in not relying on the varacity of the Panchnama and the Death Certificates issued by the doctor and the SDM and erroneously treated these documents as suspicious and doubtful and dismissed his claim. Therefore, the present appeal be allowed 3 and the damages as claimed by the complainant in his complaint be awarded.
3. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the entire material and evidence available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and his memo of appeal and requested that the appeal be allowed and the order of the DCF be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the complainant neither lodged any FIR nor got the post-mortem done on the dead body of his father, who died in suspicious circumstances. So there is no evidence on record to show that his father died of poisonous insect bite. The certificate issued by the doctor is also suspicious as it has been issued 22 days after the death of the complainant's father. The cause of death cannot be ascertained in absence of the post-mortem report. The medical certificate issued by the doctor on 07.04.2009 does not specifically indicate that at which place of the body insect had bitten the deceased or what were the remarkable changes in the body of the deceased after the alleged bite by poisonous animal or insect. The certificate issued by the SDM on 27.04.2009 also does not disclose as to on what basis he came to the conclusion that the deceased had died of poisonous insect bite. Therefore, the learned DCF has rightly did not rely on the certificates and documents produced by the complainant and has rightly dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the present appeal be also dismissed.
5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant's father got himself insured for Rs. 5 lacs for a period from 29.01.1999 to 4 28.01.2014 under Janta Personal Accident Policy from the Insurance Company. It is also an admitted fact that Ramjilal insured died on 13.03.2009 while working in his fields. It is true that neither any FIR was lodged nor any post-mortem on the body of the deceased was performed. But a post-mortem is not at all essential to ascertain the cause of death in case of bite by poisonous insect or a snake as has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in I ( 2006 ) CPJ 11 (NC) ( Dharmisetty Srinivas Rao Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ). Therefore, the production of post-mortem report is not at all a condition precedent to ascertain the cause of death in cases of snake bites or bites by any poisonous insects. The complainant and the deceased Ramjilal come from rural background and legal niceties are not expected from the complainant in such circumstances. If no post-mortem was performed on the body of the deceased and no FIR was lodged by the complainant, then it could not be concluded conclusively that the deceased did not die as a consequence to bite by a poisonous insect and the findings given by the learned DCF in this regard does not appear to be in consonance with settled principles of law and facts available on record. From the two Panchnamas prepared on 13.03.2009 and produced by the complainant, it appears that they have been prepared by the Sarpanch, Panch and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Surajpura and it has also been signed by the Patwari and the Headmaster of the Secondary School, Surajpura. It appears that it specifically mentions the cause of death of the deceased Ramjilal. These certificates show that Ramjilal died at 8.00 a.m. on 13.03.2009 due to bite by a poisonous " Gohra '', while working in his fields. The SDM, Dausa also on the basis of an enquiry, issued a certificate on 27.04.2009 which also shows that Ramjilal died at 8.00 a.m. on 13.03.2009 due to bite by poisonous '' Gohra ''. The 5 certificate of the SDM also bears the signatures of Tehsildar and Patwari of the concerned area. Similarly a Government Medical Officer issued a certificate on 07.04.2009 about the death of Ramjilal, which shows that the deceased was under his treatment and the death might have caused due to insect bite. Though no specific reasons have been assigned in the certificate issued by the doctor, but this certificate issued by the doctor also gets corroboration from the two panchnamas prepared by the officers of the Gram Panchayat and the certificate issued by the SDM, Dausa.
6. The Sarpanch, Panch, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Tehsildar, the Patwari, the SDM and the Doctor are the responsible public servants, who do not have any personal interest in the matter and the certificates issued by them cannot be treated lightly and in casual manner and cannot be disbelived without assigning any cogent reasons. Therefore, the learned DCF has erred in not beliving on the certificates of the SDM, the Doctor and the Panchanamas prepared by the officers of the Gram Panchayat and produced by the complainant. The affidavits of the complainant Girraj Prasad Meena, Gopal and Dholiram also support the facts mentioned in the Panchanamas and the certificates prepared by the doctor and the SDM and there is no reason to disbelive the facts mentioned in these affidavits because these facts are also corroborated by the aforesaid Panchnamas and the death certificates issued by the SDM and the doctor. Though the doctor issued the certificate 22 days after the death of the deceased and the SDM issued the certificate about 45 days after the incident, but this cannot be the sole ground to disbelive the certificates as they have been prepared by the responsible public cervants who do not have any personal interest in the matter.
67. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons we are of the opinion that the learned DCF ignored the facts available on record and erred in holding the veracity of the panchanama and the death certificates of the deceased as suspicious and doubtful. The impugned order dated 20.10.2011 of the learned DCF deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeal and the complaint of the complainant deserves to be allowed.
8. Therefore, after considering the entire facts and evidence on record, the impugned order dated 20.10.2011 of the learned DCF in Complaint No. 50/2010 is quashed and set aside and the appeal and the complaint is allowed. The complainant shall be entitled to get from the Insurance Company the insured amount of Rs. 5 ( five ) lacs with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint. The complainant shall also be entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- ( Ten Thousand ) as cost of the proceedings from the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is directed to comply with the order within one month.
Member Member President nm