State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Manjeet Kaur on 21 August, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.288 of 2022
Date of institution : 13.04.2022
Reserved On : 26.07.2023
Date of decision : 21.08.2023
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 72, Phase IX, Mohali/Regional
Office i.e. United India Insurance Company, 136, Feroze Gandhi
Market, Ludhiana through Shama Arora, Assistant Manager (Legal),
United India Insurance Company.
....Appellant/OP No.3
Versus
1. Manjeet Kaur aged about 48 years widow of Sh. Pal Singh R/o
Village Kaureana, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. State of Punjab, through Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda.
3. Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, Mini Secretariat,
Sector-9, Chandigarh.
....Respondents/OP No.1 & 2
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 2
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes/No
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Dhrupninder Brar, Advocate for
Sh. H.S. Sony, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : None
For respondent No.3 : Sh. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
Appellant/OP No.3 i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (in short, "the District Commission") in CC No.325 of 2018, whereby the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant had been partly allowed by awarding the cost and compensation of ₹10,000/- against the appellant/OP No.3 by directing to pay an amount of ₹5 lac along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of repudiation i.e. 03.09.2018 till its realization. However, the complaint was dismissed qua to OPs No.1 & 2.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 3
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the respondent No.1/complainant in the complaint filed by her before the District Commission are that she was a poor lady and was living under below poverty line, as she was not having any immovable property. She was holding the Blue Card issued by the Government of Punjab for getting Atta/Dal under the control rates. The husband of the complainant namely Sh. Pal Singh was holding a card issued under 'Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojana' (BPSSBY). As per the said scheme, the head of the family was entitled for a compensation of ₹5 lac in case of accidental death or 100% disability. Further it was also mentioned in the complaint that the husband of the complainant was murdered by one Dewal Singh @ Kewal Singh by throwing him in the Bhakhra Canal on the intervening night of 10/11.07.2017. FIR No.194 dated 12.07.2017 was registered under Section 302 IPC against said Dewal Singh @ Kewal Singh in Police Station Kalianwali, District Sirsa and the challan was also presented against said person, which was pending at the time of filing of the complaint. The husband of the complainant was the head of the family and the complainant being the nominee of the deceased was entitled for ₹5 lac as compensation under 'Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojana'. The complainant had applied for the said claim amount by furnishing the requisite documents but nothing was paid and the issue was put off on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the claim was repudiated by OP First Appeal No.288 of 2022 4 No.3 vide letter dated 03.09.2018 on the ground that as per the Chemical Report and the final opinion of the doctor, who had performed the PMR, there was presence of alcohol, which was falling under the exclusion clause of the terms and conditions of the policy. The repudiation of the claim was stated to be illegal, unlawful and arbitrary, as it was based on false grounds just to avoid the liability to pay the insurance claim of ₹5 lac. It was also mentioned in the complaint that the death was not due to drowning into the canal under the influence of alcohol but it was a case of murder and was a case of unnatural death, as the husband of the complainant was murdered after committing robbery by Dewal Singh @ Kewal Singh and the dead body was thrown into the canal thereafter by said person. The compensation was also sought for causing mental tension and harassment as well.
4. The prayer was made in the complaint for issuance of directions to the OPs to pay an amount of ₹5 lac as compensation under the said scheme along interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. from the death of the insured till its realization.
5. The complaint was contested by the OPs on issuing notice by the District Commission.
6. OPs No.1 & 2 also filed joint reply, wherein certain legal objections were raised by stating therein that the OPs had no concern with the claim and the complaint was not maintainable as the First Appeal No.288 of 2022 5 complainant was not falling under the definition of consumer, as no premium was paid for availing the facility under the scheme. Further it was mentioned that the claimant was not having any pre-existing right to file the complaint as no cause of action had arisen to file the complaint against OPs No.1 & 2. The District Commission was having no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as the complainant was not falling under the definition of consumer.
7. The complaint was opposed on merits also and the other averments made in the complaint were specifically denied. It was further mentioned that it was a cashless health policy available to the cardholders of the scheme. The Notification dated 02.05.2016 was issued for which the District Grievance Redressal Committee (DGRC) was constituted at District level to settle the dispute between all the stakeholders. Further it was mentioned that the complainant did not make any representation before the said committee and as such she was not entitled for any claim as sought in the complaint. The role of OPs No.1 & 2 was limited only to entertain and decide any dispute arisen between the stakeholders. Further it was mentioned that any claim whatsoever was payable only on the part of OP No.3 but still OPs No.1 & 2 were ready to take up the matter under the said committee. It was also prayed that the complaint being devoid of any merit be dismissed.
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 6
8. OP No.3 had also filed separate reply by raising certain preliminary objections stating therein that OP No.3 had entered into an agreement with the State Government as per the Tender dated 17.08.2016 issued by the State, the Department of Health and Family Welfare to insure Blue Cardholders under 'Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojana' w.e.f. 01.11.2016 to 31.10.2017. The husband of the complainant was insured under the said scheme. The relevant terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were also supplied to the State of Punjab and Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on the ground that as per Chemical Examination Report and Forensic Science Lab. Report regarding viscera, there was presence of alcohol which was contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the State. In the FIR, which was recorded on the basis of statement of Hardeep Singh, the insured was murdered by Dewal Singh @ Kewal Singh and as per Postmortem Report, it was found that the insured was under the influence of alcohol at the time of death. It was also mentioned that the complaint was also liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and also that the legal heirs of the deceased were not impleaded as parties. On merits, it was pleaded that the insured did not die due to any accident but he was murdered and as such the complainant was not entitled for any compensation as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 7
9. By considering the contents of the complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, the complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021 by relying upon the certain judgments passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ranjit Kaur (2011) 3 CPJ 232 (NC) and Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pawan Balram Mulchandani F.A. No.1357 of 2016 decided on 25.09.2018 (NC). The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-22 is reproduced as under:
"22. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.3 and dismissed qua opposite parties No.1 & 2. The opposite party No.3 is directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 3.9.2018 (date of repudiation) till payment to complainant."
10. Said order has been challenged by the appellant/OP No.3 by way of filing the present appeal by raising a number of arguments.
11. There was a delay of 48 days in filing of the appeal. Misc. Application No.531 of 2022 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an affidavit. Said application was allowed vide order dated 22.04.2022 and the delay in filing of the appeal was condoned.
12. Mr. Munish Goel, learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.3 has submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on the ground that as per the Chemical Report and the final opinion of the doctor, there was presence of alcohol in the body of the deceased, which was falling under the exclusion clause of the terms First Appeal No.288 of 2022 8 and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy were supplied to the State of Punjab and Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the statement of Hardeep Singh recorded in the FIR along with postmortem report and viscera report, it was found that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. The deceased did not die due to any accident but he was murdered and as such the death was not falling under the terms and conditions of the policy. Even as per the Tender issued by the State of Punjab, the claim was not payable. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant was not falling under the definition of 'consumer', as she had neither paid any premium nor availed any facility under the scheme. The State Government had also issued a Notification dated 02.05.2016 for settlement of the disputes of the stakeholders by the District Grievance Redressal Committee (DGRC) but the complainant did not move any representation before the said committee and as such the complainant was not entitled for any claim. The District Commission has failed to take into consideration all these facts and circumstances and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maninder Singh Patwari & Ors. as well as the First Appeal No.288 of 2022 9 judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission reported as 2006 CLT 253 but no copy of said judgment had been supplied.
13. Mr. Dhrupninder Singh Brar the proxy for Sh. H.S. Sony, the counsel for respondent No.1/complainant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on the record. The death of the insured was a case of the accidental death and as such, the OPs were liable to pay an amount of ₹5 lac as compensation as per the terms and conditions of the scheme launched by the State of Punjab as well as the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel has relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) Maya Devi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India decided on 21.05.2008 (NC); and
ii) Smt. Rita Devi & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
decided on 27.04.2000 (NC).
14. Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No.3/OP No.3 has submitted that the complaint was rightly dismissed qua to OP No.3.
15. Heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.3 as well as respondent No.1/complainant. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2/OP No.1 at the time of arguments. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 10
16. Facts regarding filing of the complaint by the complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the OPs, partly allowing of said complaint and thereafter filing of the present appeal by the appellant/OP No.3 are not in dispute.
17. Admittedly, the husband of the complainant was holder of the card issued under the scheme known as 'Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojna' launched by the Government of Punjab. As per the version of the complainant, her husband was murdered by one Dewal Singh @ Kewal Singh by throwing him in Bhakhra Canal on the intervening night of 10/11.07.2017. FIR No.194 dated 12.07.2017 was registered under Section 302 IPC against said person in Police Station Kalianwali, District Sirsa and the challan was also presented against said person, which was pending at the time of filing of the complaint. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the appellant/OP No.3 vide letter dated 03.09.2018 (Ex.C-5) on the ground that as per the Chemical Report and the final opinion of the doctor who had performed the postmortem, there was presence of alcohol in the body of the insured, which was falling under the exclusion clause of the terms and conditions of the policy.
18. The first question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the claim had rightly been repudiated on the ground that there was presence of alcohol in the body of the deceased or not? First Appeal No.288 of 2022 11
19. On perusal of Chemical Examiner's Report (Ex.OP-3/8), the following finding was given:
"Content of exhibit No.1,2 & 3 gave positive test for Ethyl alcohol. Ethyl alcohol was estimated at 34.5 mg% in exhibit No.3. Content of the exhibit No.4 gave positive test for saline only."
20. Similar issue had arisen before the Hon'ble National Commission in R.P. No.2805 of 2016 (Narinder Kumar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.) decided on 14.09.2022. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble National as mentioned in Paras-8 & 9 is reproduced as under:
"8. We would like to dwell further on the PM and the FSL reports. On careful perusal of the PM report it is evident that there are no findings or any evidence to prove that the stomach contents had smell of alcohol and whether blood and urine samples of the deceased were collected or not.
As per the FSL report the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 59.45 mg%. Even if it was so, let us see whether it constitutes intoxication to the human. For toxic effects of Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) we have gone through the standard text books on Forensic Medicine viz. Modi's Jurisprudence and Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology and we have also taken reference from AIIMS Manual for Physicians in National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre.
As per Modi's Jurisprudence a person who has consumed less than 150 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of his blood cannot be said to be under the influence of alcohol (intoxicated), whereas as per the text book of Lyon's a person having 100 mg or more per 100 ml of blood will be said to be under the influence of alcohol. The AIIMS Manual states the BAC and its effects as below:
BAC Effects on body mg/dl Euphoria, feeling of relaxation and talking freely, clumsy ≤ 80 movement of hands and legs, reduced alertness but believes himself to be alert.
≤ 80 Noisy, moody, impaired
judgement, impaired driving
100-200 ability Electroencephalographic
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 12
changes begin to appear,
Blurred vision, unsteady gait,
gross motor in-coordination,
slurred speech, aggressive,
quarrelsome, talking loudly.
Amnesia for the experience -
200-300
blackout.
300-350 Coma
355-600 May cause or contribute to death
Thus, if we go by any standard lexicon, the BAC level 59.45 mg% is far less to say that the human was intoxicated as to be out of his senses or with reflexes impaired. Moreover, the material lapses and errors pointed out by the District Forum (quoted in para 5 above) create sufficient doubts about the BAC. It bears emphasis that admittedly the PM and the evidence categorically showed it was asphyxial death due to drowning.
9. Thus, on the one hand there are material lapses and errors apropos the PM and the FSL reports and on the other hand even if BAC level 59.45 mg% is taken on its face the same is far less to say that the human was under the influence of alcohol as to be intoxicated beyond his senses or with reflexes impaired.
Considering the facts and evidence in the entirety, in our considered view, the insurance co. mechanically repudiated the accident benefit claim by taking recourse to its said condition no. 10(b)(i) in the routine without examining the relevant and material documents with the due and requisite application of mind, its act is neither correct nor justifiable.
We may clarify that we are not adding to or subtracting from the relevant condition no. 10(b)(i) of the policy. We are only observing that on the basis of the evidence and material available on the record the said condition was not at all attracted in the present case.
21. In another case reported as Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ranjit Kaur 2011 (3) CPJ 232, which has been relied upon by the District Commission, the circumstances were similar. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"The fact that death of the insuree was caused because of the electrocution during the subsistence of the insurance policy is not in dispute. The only issue under dispute is whether the insuree was intoxicated at the time of his death which as per the exclusion clause First Appeal No.288 of 2022 13 in the Insurance Policy would justify repudiation of the double accident benefit insurance claim. While it is a fact that the Chemical Examiner in his report had stated that the blood alcohol concentration in the body of the deceased was 86.25 mg per 100 ml. of blood which as per the American Medical Examinations definitions is higher than the alcohol concentration level of impairment, it has also come in evidence that this by itself is not adequate proof that the deceased was intoxicated at the time of his death. As rightly observed by the leaned fora below, the specific clinical picture of alcohol intoxication also depends on the quantity and frequency of consumption and duration of drinking at that level and, therefore, mere presence of alcohol even above the usually prescribed limits is not a conclusive proof of intoxication. Apart from this, there is also no evidence that there was a nexus between the death caused by electric shock and consumption of liquor.
22. In the present case, as per the Chemical Examiner Report, the level of blood alcohol concentration in the body of the deceased was 34.5 mg. per 100 ml. of blood.
23. In view of ratio of law as laid down in the above noted judgments, the presence of 34.5 mg. per 100 ml. of blood in the body of the deceased was not adequate/conclusive proof that he was intoxicated to such an extent that he lost control of his body and himself fell into the canal. Rather, there were specific averments made in the complaint that the deceased was murdered by throwing him in the canal.
24. The next question/issue to be determined is as to whether the death by murder of the insured can be held to be a case of 'accidental death' or not?
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 14
25. As per the medical opinion given by Dr. Harish Agarwal (Ex.OP-3/3), the cause of death of the insured was asphyxia as a result thereof antemortem drowning, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Asphyxia means a lack of oxygen or excess of carbon dioxide in the body, which is usually caused by interruption of breathing and that causes unconsciousness.
26. The word 'Accident' has wider meaning. An accident is an occurrence or an event, which is unforeseen and startles one when it takes place but does not startle one when it does not take place. It is not the happening of the expected but the happening of the unexpected, which is called as an accident. The happening of something, which is not inherent in the normal course of events and which is not ordinarily expected to happen or occur, is called a mishap or an accident.
27. Further, in the Halburys Laws of England (4th Edition, 2003, Reissue, Insurance, 569 and 571) also, the meaning of the word 'Accident' is given and even the death in case of exposure to natural elements is stated to be accidental death. The relevant Sections thereof are reproduced as under:
569. Meaning of "accident":-
The event insured against may be indicated in the policy solely by reference to the phrase injury by accident or the equivalent phrase accidental injury, or it may be indicated as injury caused by or resulting from an accident. The word accident, or its adjective accidental, is no doubt used with the intention of First Appeal No.288 of 2022 15 excluding the operation of natural causes such as old age, congenital or insidious disease or the natural progression of some constitutional physical or mental defect; but the ambit of what is included by the word is not entirely clear. It has been said that what is postulated is the intervention of some cause which is brought into operation by chance so as to be fairly describable as fortuitous. The idea of something haphazard is not necessarily inherent in the word; it covers any unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed, or any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence. The test of what is unexpected is whether the ordinary reasonable man would not have expected the occurrence, it being irrelevant that a person with expert knowledge, for example of medicine, would have regarded it as inevitable. The stand point is that of the victim, so that even willful murder may be accidental as far as the victim is concerned.
....................
571. Exposure to elements. Even where there are no antecedent circumstances which can be separately visualized and described as an accident, the results to the victim may nonetheless be accidental. Injury or death caused by lightning, sunstroke or earthquake has been held to be accidental.
Similarly, where a man in the course of his work is exposed to excessive heat coming from a boiler and becomes exhausted or has to stand in icy cold water and sustains pneumonia or, having got overheated, is exposed to a draught resulting in pneumonia or sustains sub-acute rheumatism as a result of baling out of a flooded mine, his injuries have been held to be accidental."
28. An accident also postulates a mishap or an untoward happening, something, which is unexpected and unforeseen.
29. The 'Accidental Death' has also been defined in Clause 5 (L) of the Brochure/terms and conditions of the 'Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojana' (BPSSBY) at Page-28/34 of the paperbook of appeal, which is reproduced as under:
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 16
"1. This cover shall be available to the Head of the Family of the enrolled Beneficiary Family Unit and will include accidental death and permanent total disability resulting solely/and directly from any kind of accident caused by external and visible means, such accidents occurring within the period of insurance policy, that will include the following:
1) Burning
2) Asphyxia caused by room heating devises
3) Drowning
4) Washing away in floods, avalanches, landslides
5) Electrocution
6) Snake/Insect Bite
7) Attack by wild/rabid animals
8) Earquakes
9) Cyclones
10) Acts of terrorism
11) Collapse of roof
12) Fall from tree/roofs/stairs/pole/vehicle
13) Road traffic accidents."
30. The appellant Insurance Company had not denied that the death of the insured had occurred due to drowning in the canal. The appellant had only taken the defence that the since the insured was murdered so his death was not covered under the term 'accident' as per the conditions of the scheme/policy. Neither it has not been proved on record that it was a case of suicide nor this fact has been alleged by the appellant. However, it has come in the statement of Hardeep Singh as well as the version in the FIR that the insured was murdered by drowning into the canal. The 'accidental death' by 'drowning' has been clearly covered under Clause 5 (L) of the scheme, as reproduced above. Although a note has been given under said Clause that the First Appeal No.288 of 2022 17 accidental death/permanent disability resulting from any kind of accident which occurs due to influence of alcohol or drug will not be covered as per IRDA Guidelines but in view of the law as laid down in the judgments as discussed above, the presence of 34.5 mg. per 100 ml. of blood in the body of the deceased was not adequate/conclusive proof that he was intoxicated to such an extent that he lost his control over his body and himself fell into the canal. The appellant is misinterpreting the terms of the scheme on its own in his perception but the terms and conditions of the scheme are to be read as a whole and not in parts and the same are to be understood in the real spirit.
31. Same issue was there before the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Maya Devi (supra). The relevant portion of said judgment as mentioned in Para-17 & 18 is reproduced as under:
"17. Firstly, it is to be stated that in the case of Rita Devi (supra), the Apex Court considered and interpreted a phrase providing "death due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle". Thereafter, the Court referred to various decisions and arrived at a conclusion that they have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the deceased, Dashrath Singh, was employed to drive an auto rickshaw for ferrying passengers on hire. On the fateful day the auto-rickshaw was parked at auto-rickshaw stand and unknown passengers engaged the said auto-rickshaw for their journey and during that journey, it was alleged that the passengers caused murder of Dashrath Singh. The Apex Court held that death in such case was due to accident. The Court further observed that the difference between 'murder which is not an accident' and 'murder with is an accident' depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. If the cause of murder or act of murder was First Appeal No.288 of 2022 18 originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder arising out of the use of motor vehicle and held that the insurance company was liable to reimburse the claimant.
18. The Court referred to the decision in the case of Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn (1910) 1 KB 689, where a cashier, while traveling in a railway to a colliery with a large sum of money for the payment of his employer's workmen, was robbed and murdered. The Court of Appeal held that murder was an accident from the standpoint of the person who suffered from it and that it arose 'out of' an employment which involved more than the ordinary risk and consequently the widow was entitled to compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act.
32. In the case of Eeta Devi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2015 (2) CLT 504 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has held that the onus to prove that the death of the insured was not a case of accident shifts on the Insurance Company, which it fails to discharge. As such, the repudiation of the claim was held to be totally unjustified.
33. In the present case also, the Insurance Company has failed to prove by any cogent and convincing evidence that the death of the insured was not a case of accidental death and was not falling under the terms and conditions of the scheme, specifically Clause 5(L) thereof. Although the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company had opined that the deceased was murdered and the murder is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy but said opinion of the Investigator is controverted and discarded by our above discussion.
First Appeal No.288 of 2022 19
34. In the complaint, it has been mentioned that the trial under the FIR against Dewal Singh @ Kewal Singh is pending before the trial Court. No latest status of said case has been brought to our notice. Although we have held that the death by murder in the present case is accidental one but it is made clear that the allegations of the complainant regarding murder of the deceased by said person are subject matter of evidence by the prosecution before the trial court.
35. As far as the objection of the OPs that the complainant was not falling under the definition of consumer as she had not paid any premium, is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the definition of 'consumer' is provided under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), which reads as under:
"(7) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) ---------------------------------; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
36. From the perusal of definition of 'consumer' as given above, the beneficiary of any such service availed by such person also comes under the category of consumer. Therefore, the First Appeal No.288 of 2022 20 complainant being the wife of the insured falls under the definition of 'consumer' being beneficiary.
37. The other stand of the appellant is that the State Government has also issued a Notification dated 02.05.2016 for settlement of the disputes of the stakeholders by the District Grievance Redressal Committee (DGRC) but the complainant never moved any representation before the said committee. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the District Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain and try such like cases being additional remedy.
38. In view of the discussion as held above as well as the ratio of law as laid down in the above noted judgments, the claim of the complainant was wrongly repudiated. The order passed by the District Commission is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on the record. No interference is required. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
39. Accordingly, we find no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and the appeal being devoid First Appeal No.288 of 2022 21 of any merit is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the District Commission is upheld.
40. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
41. The appellant had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹6,51,292/- was also deposited in compliance of order dated 22.04.2022 passed by this Commission. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. Respondent No.1/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
42. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER August 21, 2023.
(Gurmeet S)