RUKMANI DEVI WD/O DURGA NAND VERMA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND ORS
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-1-6
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 01,2010

Rukmani Devi Wd/O Durga Nand Verma Appellant
VERSUS
National Insurance Company And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved from the order dated 20.7.2009, passed by District Forum Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 244/2003. By means of impugned order, complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed, hence this appeal.
(2.) LATE husband of the appellant, Shri Durga Nand was working as Headmaster in Government Primary School, Chawai, (Deha Block), Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. According to the appellant, respondents No. 2 to 4 with a view to provide insurance cover to its staff had got the deceased alongwith other persons insured with respondent No.1 to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs in case of accidental death.
(3.) DECEASED died as a result of accident according to the appellant, and daily diary report to that effect was lodged. This fact is mentioned by respondent No.4 in his communication dated 16.4.2002, Annexure C -7. This is a letter addressed to the Divisional Manager of respondent No.1. Accident had taken place on 2.2.2001 as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and ultimately he died on 5.5.2001. Premium had been deducted out of his salary is clear from the certificates issued by Block Primary Education Officer. Documents to this effect are at pages 47 and 49 of the complaint file. Appellant had submitted copy of FIR, discharge slip issued by IGMC Shimla, MLC, and certificate of first aid issued by Civil Hospital Kotkhai, certificate from Tehsildar regarding amount disbursed through Sub Divisional Officer and death certificate, to the Block Primary Education Officer, vide Annexure C -6. Since claim was not settled appellant got legal notice issued vide Annexure C -10, but without any consequence. Alleging deficiency in service, Complaint No. 244/2003 was filed by her. Stand of the respondent No.1 while contesting this complaint was, that it was not maintainable as the appellant was not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after the claim was examined under the policy, deficiency of service was not there, and repudiation of claim was justified. According to it since post mortem report was not furnished after he died on 5.5.2001, complaint was liable to be dismissed. Further according to respondent No.1 it was for the legal heirs to justify the stand that deceased had died as a result of accident. This is the pith and substance of the reply filed by the respondent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.