M.K.BASU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.7.2004 passed by the Hooghly Consumer District Forum in its Case No. 17 of 2004 under which the Forum allowed the complaint on contest without cost. It found the complainant entitled to get Rs. 50,000 as lump sum amount from the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and directed the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to make payment of the same within a period of 30 days. However, the Forum dismissed the case as against the O.P. Nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) BEING aggrieved thereby the O.P. namely The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has referred the present appeal challenging the order as erroneous, illegal and improper and liable to be set aside.
(3.) THE case of the complainant was that he was a policy holder of Janata Personal Accident Insurance under the O.P. -Insurance Company commencing from 1st February, 1999 till 31st January, 2004. The complainant met with an accident on 25.7.2002 when he was working at Gondalpara Jute Mill the place of his employment. He was struck on his right eye all of a sudden by an operating machine. This caused blunt injury in his right eye. He was referred to ESI Hospital. Dr. B.N. Pal treated him on 26.7.2000. The accident was registered on 25.7.2000. Dr. Pal observed in his medical report that the petitioner had suffered injury on the lip of the right eye when he was engaged in operating the machine. A part of the machine became loose and it hurriedly struck on his right eye. The ESI Medical Officer referred him to AMO ESI (MD) Scheme 64 for further medical treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to Medical Officer of Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata as OPD patient on 19.9.2000. Due to this accident the petitioner had lost his vision completely. His right eye became permanently disabled. He then put his claim for reimbursement of the policy money of Rs. 4 lakh before the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company However, when the accident had occurred within the Jute Mill premises no case was registered with the Police Station and hence no police report could be forwarded. But the Insurance Company refused to oblige him. Then he filed this case before the Consumer Forum. The O.P. No. 2 contested the case before the Forum by furnishing written version and necessary documents. It was its contention that the complaint was not maintainable and also on merit it had no substance. The complainant was not involved in any accident in the Jute Mill as alleged on 25.7.2002. The report dated 4.7.2000 of ESI Dr. B.N. Pal revealed that the complainant has complained of gradual loss of vision, pain, watering etc. from his right eye six months before this accident took place and, therefore, he had been referred to eye specialist of the ESI Hospital on 27.3.2000 and 7.4.2000. Subsequently the complainant was referred to Dr. R. Sarkar's Eye Clinic at Serampore on 6.6.2000 and in this way the complainant suffered loss of vision prior to the alleged accident which took place on 27.5.2000 as alleged. According to this O.P. there was no deficiency in service on its part and hence they rightly repudiated the claim. The case, therefore, is liable to be dismissed with cost. Similarly, the O.P. No. 3 also contested the case by filing a separate written version stating that it was nothing but an agent of the Insurance Company and it simply forwarded the application of the complainant for being enrolled and he had nothing more to take any part in this case and his name should be expunged.;