JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

                This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 09.11.2017 whereby the said Commission partly allowed the appeal field by the respondent company against the order of the District Forum dated 24.1.2012, allowing the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner. 

2.      The case of the complainant / petitioner in nut shell is that her husband late Shri Vajabhai Natada was the beneficiary of the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy taken from the respondent company.  Under the said policy, the complainant was entitled to a benefit of Rs.5,00,000/- in the event of accidental death of her husband.  On 29.11.2009 when late Shri Vajabhai Natada was driving a motorcycle, a buffalo hit against the said motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries to him.  He was taken to a hospital where he was treated till 12.12.2009.  He came home being discharged from the hospital.  He was again taken to the hospital, where he died on 15.12.2009.  Since the claim submitted by the complainant under the policy was not paid, she approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent, primarily on the ground that the deceased had not died on account of an accident and that his death was a natural death.

4.      The District Forum vide its order dated 24.1.2012 allowed the consumer complaint and directed the respondent company to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum and cost of litigation quantified at Rs.3,000/-.

5.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 09.11.2017, the State Commission while upholding the deceased had died due to accidental injuries, reduced the quantum of compensation by 25% and directed the respondent company to pay only a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-, that being 75% of the claim amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint and the cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

6.      Since no cross petition has been preferred by the respondent and payment in terms of the order passed by the State Commission has already been made, it is evident that the respondent has accepted the findings returned by the fora below as far as the cause of death is concerned.  Even otherwise, a perusal of the impugned order would show that the doctor has testified that the treating doctor had given a certificate, certifying that the death of deceased was an accidental death and had also tendered an affidavit before the concerned District Forum.  Therefore, it can hardly be disputed at this stage that the deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained in an accidental.

7.      Once it was proved that the deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained in an accident, there was no justification for directing the payment on Non-Standard-Basis and deducting 25% of the benefit available under the policy.  No particular reason has been given by the State Commission for such a deduction, even after upholding the finding that the deceased had died due to accidental injuries.  The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.  The order passed by the District Forum is restored.  The balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from today.

          The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.