Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant’s wife Kuni Sahu had opened S.B. account with OP No.1 Bank with the facility of coverage of insurance for life for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- under  “Surakhya Scheme” of the Bank. It is alleged inter alia that on 1.6.2010 at 7 P.M. while the policy holder was taking bath in her village tank, she died due to snake bite. Thereafter, the matter was informed to the OPs. but they did not settle the claim for which the complaint was filed.

4.      OP No.1 filed written version without disputing the death of Smt. Kuni Sahu. It is also averred by OP No.1 that they have informed OP No.2 who is to settle the claim. OP No.2 did not settle the claim for which OP No.1 is not responsible.

5.      OP No.2 filed written version separately stating that complainant has not filed the relevant documents i.e., legal heir certificate, postmortem report and other supporting documents for which claim was not settled.

6.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            In view of the above findings and considered to the circumstance of the case, we allow the case of the complainant. We direct the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) the insured amount against insurance cover of Kuni Sahu to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within the specified period as above, the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay interest on the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of order till actual payment.

The case is disposed of accordingly with an order of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards cost of litigation to be paid by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant within the period as specified above.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version filed by the OPs.  According to him, the complainant was required to prove the cause of death of the concerned woman. Learned District Forum failed to apply judicial mind to the fact that one of the policy conditions for the insured applied to submit all documents for settlement of the claim. Since the required documents are not filed, not only the policy condition violated but also they have repudiated the claim. So, he submitted that the learned District Forum ought to have rejected the complaint. So, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

8.      Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that he has already filed the report of the Public Health functionary to show that the wife of the complainant expired due to snake bite. He also submitted that there is also death certificate submitted by the complainant to show the death of the wife of the complainant. When death of the wife of the complainant is proved by snake bite, the complainant is entitled to the claim. So, he supports the impugned order.

9.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    Complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

11.    It is admitted fact that the complainant’s wife had got SB account with OP No.1 with coverage of insurance duly purchased from OP No.2 under ‘Surakhya Scheme’. Annexure – 2 series of the complaint show that OP No.1 has already informed OP No.2 about the death of the wife of the complainant due to snake bite. Not only this but also Annexure – 3 series show that the Public Information Officer of the P.H.C., Kavisurya Nagar has reported the death of the policy holder Kuni on 11.6.2010. The death certificate issued by the competent authority also indicates that Kuni has expired on 1.6.2010. Thus, there are lot of documents submitted to OP No.2 to show the death of  Kuni Sahu was due to snake bite. When death was occurred, the plea of OP No.2 about non-submission of further documents is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. In this regard, learned District Forum has already discussed the matter. There is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

12.    It is made clear that OP No.2 would comply the order of the learned District Forum within 45 days from today failing which such amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of impugned order till payment is made. Rest part of the impugned order remained unaltered.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.