National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dharmisetty Srinivas Rao vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 5 October, 2005
Equivalent citations: I(2006)CPJ11(NC)
ORDER
M.B. Shah, J. (President)
1. Heard the learned amicus curiae for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 15.11.2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CD Case No. 23 of 1997, the original complainant, the nominee of the deceased who had expired because of the snake-bite, has filed this appeal. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no evidence on record to establish that the deceased, Gorli Appala Narasamma, w/o Nookaraju, r/o Satyavaram Village, Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam, died because of the snake-bite.
3. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the deceased had taken a Long Term Janta Personal Accident Policy for 3 years. For that there is no dispute. There is also no dispute that the present complainant is the nominee of her aunt (the deceased) for receiving the amount as per the policy. Limited question is, whether the complainant is entitled to get the benefit of the said policy, as he failed to produce on record the post-mortem report.
4. In our view, as stated by Dr. N. Prasad Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Anakapalli, post-mortem was not conducted on the dead body, because usually, in snake bite cases postmortem examination is not conducted. Further, there is a certificate on record issued by him on 27.7.1996 that the deceased was admitted in the Community Hospital, Anakapalli on 23.7.1996 at 11 a.m. for snake-bite and the patient expired on the same day at 4 p.m. The certificate is signed by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Hospital. Thereafter, there is a certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer of Anakapalli Mandal to the effect that Gorli Appala Narasamma, widow of late Nookaraju, died because of snake bite on 23.7.1996 at about 10 a.m., while she was cutting grass. This information was conveyed to him by the neighbouring farmers. In our view, there is no justifiable ground to disbelieve the Village Administrative Officer and the doctor who treated the deceased.
5. In this view of the matter, appeal is allowed. Impugned order passed by the State Commission in CD Case No. 23/1997 is set aside. The Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 5 lakh as per the insurance policy to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.11.1996, i.e., three months after the death, till the date of payment.
6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Learned Counsel, Mr. S.M. Tripathi, who appeared as amicus curiae has rendered proper assistance. We direct the NCDRC Bar Association to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,000 as expenses from the Legal Aid Fund.