National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Mamta Singh & Anr. on 3 February, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3769 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 28/05/2011 in Appeal No. 532/2010 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Orintal House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 2 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SMT. MAMTA SINGH & ANR. W/o Late Dinesh Singh, R/o Qtr No.MD 38,Subhash Block Colony, Korba Korba C.G 2. Chief General Manager SECL, Korba Area, tehsil Korba C.G. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Shalabh Singhal, Advocate For the Respondent : For Respondent No.1 : NEMO For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Sidharth Mahajan, Advocate Dated : 03 Feb 2016 ORDER ORDER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. Sh. Dinesh Singh (since deceased), husband of Smt. Mamta Singh, the complainant, was working with S.E.C.L., who was arrayed as OP-2 in this case. Sh. Dinesh Singh was insured with M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited-OP-1 under Group Janta Personal Accident Policy for the period between 16.10.1999 to 15.10.2009 against the accidental death, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. According to the complainant, her husband, while taking bath, fell down in the bathroom and passed away, on 11.09.2005. The matter was reported to the police. He was taken to the Main Hospital, S.E.C.L., where he was declared brought dead. The police prepared the Inquest Report. It also transpired that some black marks were present on both palms of the deceased. Prima facie, it was transpired that he died due to Electrocution.
2. The dead body was sent to Autopsy Surgeon for Postmortem Examination Report and Autopsy was conducted by the Autopsy Surgeon, but before he sent his report to the Police, the Autopsy Surgeon himself passed away. Consequently, the postmortem report of Sh. Dinesh Singh could not be recorded. The Complainant filed the claim before the Insurance Company and it repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy in question, was already cancelled by it, after refunding prorata premium to the employer of the deceased, Dinesh Singh.
3. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant could not establish that the deceased Sh. Dinesh Singh died due to accident and for want of sufficient evidence. It was also found that complaint was barred by limitation, hence, it dismissed the complaint. However, the State Commission allowed the complaint. It held that the Insurance Company is liable for the same. It directed the Insurance Company-OP-1 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. It further ordered that Rs.5,00,000/- be paid within a period of 45 days, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 6% p.a., till realization. It also awarded costs of litigation in the sum of Rs.1,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/OP argued that the case is barred by limitation. In this context, it was submitted that the Sh. Dinesh Singh (the deceased) died on 11.09.2005, and the complaint was filed on 27.05.2009.
5. We have perused the evidence on record. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner / OP i.e. Oriental Insurance Company gave information of cancellation of policy from 08.03.2002. However, as per terms and conditions of MOU, the OP did not take advice or consent from earlier Joint Advisory Committee and SECL before cancelling the policy. Again, the OP had neither given any written information to the policy holder nor returned pro-rata amount to the policy holders. SECL challenged the cancellation of policy before Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition (C. No. 327/2002) which is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court . The interim stay on cancellation of policy was granted. Secondly, the Police inquest report mentioned some black marks on both palms of the deceased and it transpired that he died due to electrocution. The post mortem was also conducted but, unfortunately the report was not made available to the complainant ( as reasons stated in para 2). We do not find any reason or evidence placed by OP to prove its ground for repudiation .The State Commission also observed that the claim filed by the complainant was not to be repudiated by OP. We agree with the findings of State Commission which has rightly decided this question. The claim filed by the complainant was not to be repudiated. Although, the Company did not receive any claim, yet, legal notice was sent on behalf of the complainant on 09.03.2009.
6. The Consumer Protection Act 1986, is a social benevolent Act having wider scope in adjudicating consumer complaints. In this instant case, the complainant is a helpless widow; she was unable to procure PM Mortem report because of several reasons stated above, which was beyond her reach. It was not her fault or lapse on her part, therefore, she was unable to submit death claim in prescribed time limit. Considering the wider scope of CP Act, and in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment reported in "Santosh Goyal Versus Union of India & Ors. in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 12199 of 2013, decided on 06.01.2014", we condone the delay in filing the consumer complaint. Even if the complainant applied for the claim with OP, at the delayed stage, it should not take away the right of claimant on such technical and frivolous ground. As per police inquest, prima facie, it transpired that the insured died due to Electrocution. It was an accidental death. Absence of PM report in such circumstances, is just a technicality.
6. On the basis of forgoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the Revision petition. Hence, dismissed.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER