STATE INSURANCE & P F DEPTT Vs. PARMALI
LAWS(RAJCDRC)-2006-2-2
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 17,2006

State Insurance And P F Deptt Appellant
VERSUS
Parmali Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DHARMISETTY SRINIVAS RAO VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants which were opposite parties before the District Forum against order dated 23.6.2004 passed by the District Forum, Bharatpur by which the complaint of the respondent complainant was allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay to the complainant respondent a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as insurance claim amount along with interest @ 9% w.e.f. filing of the complaint i.e., 22.3.2001 and further to pay Rs. 500 as amount of costs.
(2.)THE necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:
That on 22.3.2001 the complainant respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum inter alia stating that late Ghansi s/o Sampat Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased ) husband of the complainant respondent was a Beldar in the office of the Irrigation Deptt., Govt. of Rajasthan and he had taken a Group Insurance Policy on 1.4.1999 and the premium was being paid by the deceased regularly. It was further stated in the complaint that on the night of 19.11.1999 when the deceased was giving water to the crops in his field near -about 3.00 a.m. in the morning a black snake had bitten on his leg as a result of which the deceased was brought to his house and thereafter in a tractor when he was being carried to Dr. B.K. Tiwari posted in the Government Dispensary, Bharatpur, the deceased had died and after that a certificate was also issued by the doctor on 19.11.1999 certifying that the deceased had died because of snake bite. Thereafter the respondent complainant being the nominee of the deceased had preferred the claim before the appellants and the claim was repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 23.1.2001 stating inter alia that since from the record it was not established that the deceased had died because of snake bite, therefore, claim was not payable. Thereafter the complaint was filed by the complainant respondent before the District Forum.

A reply was filed by the appellants on 19.5.2001 and the same plea which was taken by them in the repudiation letter dated 23.1.2001 was taken by them and apart from that it was further stated that a departmental investigation about the death of the deceased was being conducted by the Dy. Director, Mr. Sanjay Bansal who had submitted his report dated 13.11.2001 in which he has come to the conclusion that the respondent complainant had failed to prove the fact that the deceased had died because of snake bite and further in absence of post -mortem report the case of the complainant respondent would have not been found established and further the certificate of Dr. Tiwari dated 19.11.1999 was not found correct one. Hence prayer was made that the complaint be dismissed.

After hearing the parties the District Forum through impugned order dated 23.6.2004 allowed the complaint of the complainant respondent in the manner as indicated above inter alia holding that the deceased had died because of snake bite and reliance was placed on the report of Dr. Tiwari dated 19.11.1999.

Aggrieved from that order dated 23.6.2004 passed by the District Forum, Bharatpur this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

(3.)IN this appeal the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one on the point that there was no cogent evidence to prove the fact that the deceased had died because of snake bite and the certificate issued by the doctor was of succession in nature and, therefore, claim of the respondent was rightly repudiated by the appellants and the District Forum had committed serious illegality and error in decreeing the claim of the respondent. Hence, impugned order could not be sustained and liable to the quashed and set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent complainant has supported the impugned order of the learned District Forum decreeing claim of the complainant respondent.



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