NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 26.8.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 12.7.2004 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opp.party No.1 was directed to pay under Devi Rakshak Scheme an amount of Rs.1 lakh being the insured sum along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 24.10.2003 and Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. The Government of Haryana had taken an insurance policy from the petitioner insurance company for a period of one year commencing from 2.10.2003 and the conditions of policy were incorporated in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the parties on 1.10.2003. Scheme was to be confined to all the bread-earners of all families in Haryana except Government employees and income-tax payees whose names appeared in the voters list or ration cards issued by the Civil Supplies Department, Haryana. A dependant on death/permanent disability of the bread-earner due to accidents like snake-bite, was to get an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner under the said scheme. It was alleged that Jagbir Singh, husband of the respondent who was doing agricultural work in the field, was bitten by a snake on 30.9.2003 and was taken to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment where he expired on 21.10.2003. At the time of death, Jagbir Singh was aged 45 years and was the only bread-earner in the family and holding a ration card. On claim made by the respondent under the said scheme not being settled, she filed a complaint which was contested by the petitioner. In the written version it was alleged that the respondent is not covered under the scheme as Jagbir Singh was bitten by the snake on 30.9.2003 while the scheme became effective from 2.10.2003. Further, the deceased was an employee of co-operative institution which fell in the category excluded by the scheme. Both the pleas were decided against the petitioner by the District Forum.

(3.) THIS principle was deduced from Kelly's case (supra) wherein it was held -