State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Tapan Samanta vs The Manager-In-Charge, Ghatal ... on 10 February, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/317/2010 DATE OF FILING : 11.06.2010 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 10.02.2012 APPELLANT Mr. Tapan Samanta S/o Late Gobinda Samanta Vill. & P.O. Jatbani P.S. Daspur Dist. Paschim Medinipur. RESPONDENTS 1. The Manager-In-Charge Ghatal Co-operative Agri and Rural Dev. Bank Ltd. Ghatal, P.O. & P.S. Ghatal Dist. Paschim Medinipur. 2. Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandrakona Road Branch Office P.O. Sathbankura, P.S. Garbeta, Dist. Pashim Medinipur. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MRS. S.MAJUMDER MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. B.Prasad, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. S.M.Maitra, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 5.5.10 passed by Paschim Medinipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint Case No. 144/2009 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the petition of complaint on contest.
The case of the Appellant/Complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the father of the complainant having a S.B.A/C with Ghatal Co-operative Agri. And Rural Dev. Bank Ltd. (OP No. 1) purchased a J.P.A. insurance policy from OP No. 2, i.e. Insurance Co. through OP No. 1 after observing all the formalities.
According to the complainants case, during the subsistence of the said insurance policy his father died due to drowning in a pond. It was the further case of the complainant that local Anchal Pradhan prepared inquest report over the dead body of his father and subsequently a police case was instituted over the said unnatural death of his father. The complainant in the capacity of a nominee of his father duly informed the accidental death of his father to the Insurance Co. and in due course of time preferred an insurance claim before the Insurance Co. and submitted all necessary and connected papers in support of his claim. Thereafter the Insurance Co. appointed an investigator to ascertain the cause of death of the insured and ultimately rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainants father died due to heart-attack and not by drowning. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such refusal on the part of Insurance Co. to settle the claim of the complainant the complainant preferred the consumer complaint for proper redressal.
The Insurance Co. contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying all the material averments contained in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the Anchal Pradhan was not competent to conduct inquest over the dead body of the complainants father and prepare a report thereof and that the police report being based on the report of the Anchal Pradhan the same is not acceptable and that the investigator was appointed on behalf of the Insurance Co. and after due enquiry has submitted a report, which has revealed that the father of the complainant did not die due to drowning, but his death was due to severe heart attack. According to the OP No. 2, the opinion of Dr. Gouri Sankar Mondal as regards death of the complainants father is not at all tenable as the said doctor did not inform such unnatural death to the police and the complainants case being based on all false and fictitious grounds the same was liable to be dismissed.
The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint did not accept the inquest report so prepared by the local Anchal Pradhan and the report of the doctor, which, according to the Ld. District Forum, was not acceptable and that on the self-same reason the police report being based on the Anchal Pradhans report the same was not also acceptable and on the other hand, the Ld. District Forum found much substance in the report of the investigator so appointed by the Insurance Co. and accordingly dismissed the petition of complaint.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Insurance Co./Respondent that the Ld. District Forum has really appreciated the cases of respective parties and as such, has arrived at a just and proper decision. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, when it is an admitted position that the Anchal Pradhan has got no authority to conduct inquest and prepare a report over a dead body and that it was incumbent upon the Anchal Pradhan to report the unnatural death of the insured to the police, question of putting any reliance on the said inquest report does not arise at all. The Ld. District Forum has taken an appropriate view in this regard and accordingly has not accepted the police report also.
The impugned judgement being a very well reasoned one, there is no scope to interfere with such finding, which should be confirmed and the Appeal should be dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Respondent and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant/Appellant has put forward a case to the effect that the father of the complainant was a holder of J.P.A. insurance policy and that during the subsistence of the said insurance policy his father died due to drowning and subsequently after observing all the formalities the complainant submitted his claim, which has been repudiated by the Insurance Co. without any rhyme and reason and hence, the petition of complaint.
The Insurance Co., on the other hand, has tried to put up a case to the effect that the manner in which the complainant has put forward his claim with the help of the Anchal Pradhan, who without any authority conducted inquest and prepared a report over the dead body without informing the same to the police and that the local doctor having supported the case of the complainant with some obvious reasons, there was no scope to entertain the claim of the complainant and that in repudiating the same there was no deficiency in service at the instance of the Insurance Co. and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that in this case the Ld. District Forum has not accepted the case of the complainant, which is based on the inquest report prepared by the local Anchal Pradhan and supported by a local doctor together with the police report, which was admittedly instituted on the unnatural death of the insured, on the ground that the same was not acceptable, but, on the other hand, has accepted the report of the investigator so appointed on behalf of the Insurance Co. When it is an admitted position that the father of the complainant died due to drowning in a pond and that there was a subsequent U.D. case instituted by police on the unnatural death of the complainants father, we find no reason to discard the police report which was based on local enquiry including the report of the Anchal Pradhan and the local doctors report.
In this case, from the material on record, it can be safely presumed that the investigator so appointed on behalf of the Insurance Co. is certainly an interested party to the proceeding.
Keeping in mind the proposition that the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted for the benefit of the consumers at large and that endeavours should be made so that the consumers are benefited by the aforesaid legislation, we find no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant, which is also based on local enquiry and being supported by a police report, which specifically shows that it was an accidental death. Having considered the present Appeal in the light of above discussion we find much merit in the present Appeal and we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs and surrounding circumstances and also has not given much weight to the objects and principles of the Consumer Protection Act and on these grounds the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed on contest without any order as to cost.
The impugned judgement is set aside.
Consequently, the consumer complaint stands allowed with a direction upon the OP No. 2/Insurance Co. to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only towards insurance coverage and Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only towards compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The OP No. 2/Insurance Co. is also directed to pay the said amounts to the complainant within 45 (forty-five) days from the date hereof, failing which the amounts will accrue interest @ 8% (eight per cent) per annum till realization in full.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT