SAKAM SUJATHA Vs. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant. The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband, Subbi Reddy had taken Personal Accident Insurance Policy covering the period from 31.03.2005 to 30.03.2010 for Rs.3,00,000/-. While so, on 04.04.2005 at about 8.00 p m while he was attending calls of nature, a snake bitten him. Immediately he was taken to Govt. Hospital, Proddatur, where he succumbed. On a report, police registered a case in Crime No.47/2005, followed by inquest and post mortem. When the complainant, being the nominee under the policy, claimed the amount, it was repudiated on the ground of non-occurrence of the incident. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint claiming Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest, costs and compensation.

(2.) The Insurance Company resisted the case. However, it admitted the issuance of policy. It alleged that the District Forum, Kadapa has no jurisdiction. Its office is situated at Kolkata. The deceased is not the assured. It is the second son of Bala Subba Reddy, who took the policy. An investigator was appointed, who after conducting enquiry opined that one Sakam Subbu Reddy had died and not Sakam Subba Reddy, who had taken the policy. Assured is not the husband of the complainant. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination could not explain as to how he concluded that the death was due to snake bite. He did not send the venom for chemical analysis. Since the death due to snake bite was not proved the complainant was not entitled to the policy amount and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) The complainant in support of her case examined herself as P.W.1, brother of the deceased S.Subbi Reddy as P.W.2 and C.Pullaiah, agent of the Insurance Company and got Exs.A.1 to A.11 marked. The opposite parties filed Exs.B.1 to B.5.