State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ranjeet Singh vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company ... on 22 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 206 / 2007
Ranjeet Singh S/o late Sh. Gurmeet Singh
R/o Village Dyodhar, Post Nakatpura
Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
4th & 5th Floors, Iffco Tower
Plot No. 3, Sector-29
Gurgaon (Haryana)
2. Secretary, Dakshini Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited
Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar
......Respondents / Opposite Parties
Sh. Anukul Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Subhash Chhabra, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 22.10.2009
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This is complainant's appeal against the order dated 05.06.2007 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, dismissing the consumer complaint No. 19 of 2006.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Sh. Gurmeet Singh, father of the complainant Sh. Ranjeet Singh, was a member of the Dakshini Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar - opposite party No. 2. The members of the Samiti, when they make a purchase of urea fertilizer through the Samiti, get an insurance cover of Rs. 4,000/- per bag of urea under the "Sankat Haran Bima Policy" of opposite party No. 1. Sh. Gurmeet 2 Singh purchased 25 bags of urea on 03.09.2004 and, as such, he got an insurance cover of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the said scheme. When the insured was spraying insecticides in the agricultural fields on 01.08.2005, he was bitten by a poisonous snake and died on the way to Sitarganj, where he was being taken for treatment. The complainant Sh. Ranjeet Singh was the nominee of the insured in the said policy. When the complainant submitted claim for the insured sum, the same was repudiated by the opposite party No. 1 on 10.10.2005. A notice was sent to the opposite party No. 1 by the complainant through his counsel, but the insurer neither took any action, nor paid the sum insured under the policy. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. The District Forum, after appreciating the facts of the case, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 05.06.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.
3. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant - appellant and respondent No. 1 and perused the material placed on record in the light of the legal aspects of the case.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the death of the insured was due to snake bite and Panchnama was submitted in this respect. Further, in the affidavits of Sh. Gursaheb Singh, Sh. Shamsher Singh and of the complainant himself, it has been averred that Sh. Gurmeet Singh had died due to snake bite when he was spraying insecticides in the fields. A Panchnama signed by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and other witnesses also certifies that Sh. Gurmeet Singh was bitten by a poisonous snake in the forenoon of 01.08.2005 and he had died on the same day at about 3:00 p.m. The learned counsel said that these are sufficient documentary evidences to prove the cause of death of the insured. A certificate issued by Dr. 3 Kuldip Singh of Sitarganj also verifies the fact that while Sh. Gurmeet Singh was being taken for treatment to his clinic, he had died on the way. The learned counsel further said that in such cases, an FIR and postmortem reports are not necessary and the documents submitted by the complainant are sufficient. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the following decisions:
(i) Decision dated 03.04.2009 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in the case of Yasa Padma Vs. LIC of India and others; II (2009) CPJ 173. In the said decision, it has been held that the affidavits produced on record are sufficient to prove that the death was due to snake bite.
(ii) Decision dated 15.07.2003 of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Vaijayanti Bai; II (2005) CPJ 445. In the said decision, it has been observed that where injuries are received in an accident at home, the question of lodging First Information Report, Postmortem Report or Final Report does not arise.
5. Thus, the learned counsel for the complainant pleaded that the order passed by the District Forum suffers from factual as well as legal infirmity and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is fit to be allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the complainant had not submitted the copy of the FIR and postmortem report, which is necessary under the terms of the policy. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company is just and the District Forum has taken a just and correct view in this respect. The 4 learned counsel also pressed into service a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan; AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3252. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the terms of the policy have to be strictly construed.
7. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We differ from the view taken by Andhra Pradesh State Commission and Madhya Pradesh State Commission in the aforementioned case laws. If it is necessary under the terms of the policy that in the case of accident, an FIR should be lodged and in the event of death of insured, postmortem should also be conducted and copies of these documents be enclosed with the claim form, than mere Panchnama and affidavits of some persons can not be taken as sufficient evidences to prove that the death of the insured was accidental. In the instant case, the persons, whose affidavits have been filed, are not the eye witnesses of the incident that a poisonous snake had bitten the insured. Similarly, without any evidence, the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat and other witnesses signing the Panchnama, can not certify that the cause of death of the insured was snake bite. In this regard, important evidence could be the certificate of Dr. Kuldip Singh of Sitarganj, but the certifying doctor has nowhere mentioned in the certificate that it was a case of snake bite or the symptoms were apparent that the deceased was bitten by a snake.
8. For all these reasons, we agree with the view taken by the District Forum. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
9. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)
K
5