Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

CC/13/99

Smt. Kamal Shivaji Salunkhe - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas S.Shinde & Shabana M.A Patel

01 Sep 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/99
 
1. Smt. Kamal Shivaji Salunkhe
Degaon,Taluka Satara
Satara
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd.
DGP House,1st Floor,88C Old Prabhadevi Marg,Prabhadevi
Mumbai-400 025
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. H.K.BHAISE MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Ms.Shabana Patel, Adv.
 
For the Opp. Party:
None present
 
ORDER

PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, her husband Mr.Shivaji Genu Salunkhe was an agriculturist holding Gut No.2224 at village Degaon, Taluka-District-Satara. He died accidentally on 31st May, 2011 by fall into well. She submitted insurance claim under the Government scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana.  Her claim was not satisfied therefore she has filed this complaint for insurance claim of Rs.1 Lakh with interest. 

2)                The opponent appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the complaint failed to submit required documents.  As there are no documents as per requirement of the agreement, the complainant is not entitled for insurance benefit.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

Sr.No.

Points

Findings

1)

Whether there is deficiency in service ? 

No

2)

Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ? 

No

3)

What Order ? 

As per final order

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The complainant has produced the revenue record, showing that her husband was holding agricultural land and he was farmer.  The complainant has produced copies of Police Patil Letter datd 8th May, 2011, discharge certificate from Sanjeevan I.C.U. Private Limited, death certificate, school leaving certificate. The complainant has not produced copy of F.I.R., Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama as per requirement of the Tripartite Agreement and Government Resolution.  The complainant has produced death certificate issued by Gram Vikas Adhikari.  It does not show cause of death. The complainant produced letter from Police Patil dated 8th May, 2011 showing that deceased fell into well while he was working in the well thereby he was injured and admitted in Sanjeevani Hospital.  After treatment, he was brought at his house and died on 31st May, 2011.  This certificate was issued on 8th May, 2011 i.e. much prior to the death of deceased. It is not clear how Police Patil could imagine the death on 31st May, 2011 prior to it on 8th May, 2011.  It shows that this certificate is not proper.  As per discharge card from the hospital, diseased was admitted in the hospital on 10th May, 2011 and discharged on 26th May, 2011. The diseased died thereafter on 31st May, 2011. The discharge card will show that the diseased was not admitted in the hospital on the day of accident.  He was also not in the hospital on the day of death.  On this background, it was necessary for the complainant to produce Inquest Panchanama and Post Mortem Report. It appears that information was not given to the police station at all.  As per Government Resolution and agreement, it is necessary to submit documents i.e. F.I.R./Police Patil Report, Inquest Panchanama and Post Mortem Report.  These documents were not submitted before the opponent.  The complainant also failed to produce these documents before this Forum with the complaint.  As there are no documents, there is no compliance of Government Resolution and agreement. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the insurance benefit.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

  1. Complaint stands dismissed.
  2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
  3. Inform the parties accordingly.

 

Pronounced on 1st September,  2014

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. H.K.BHAISE]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.