Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 53 of 2017
Date of Institution : 03.08.2017
Date of Decision : 11.02.2021
Narinder Kaur aged 45 years widow Balwinder Singh resident of village Maddar Mathra Bhagi, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran..
...Complainant
Versus
- Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. corporate office 4th & 5th Floor, Iffco Tower Plot No. 3, Sector 29 Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 through its General Manager,
- The Behar Wal M.P. CASS Ltd. village and P.O. Behar Wal Lakhana Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran through its Manager,
- The Tarn Taran Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Branch Office Valtoha through its Manager.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member
For Complainant Sh. H.S. Sandhu Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 1 Sh. R.R. Arora Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 2 Ex-parte.
For Opposite Party No. 3 Sh. S.S. Anand Advocate
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant Narinder Kaur has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. corporate office 4th & 5th Floor, Iffco Tower Plot No. 3, Sector 29 Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 through its General Manager and others (Opposite Parties) by alleging that the complainant was married with Balwinder Singh son of Ram Singh resident of village Maddar Mathra Bhagi Tehsil Patti and from this wedlock two daughters and one son were born. The husband of the complainant was working as secretary Co-op Society The Beharwal M.P Cass Ltd. village and Post Office Beharwal Lakhana Tehsil Patti. The husband of the complainant got himself insured separately under the life insured policies No. 47021566 for a sum of Rs. 7 Lacs and paid its premium of Rs.1500+300+250+50 total Rs. 1800/- and personal insurance @ One Lac and its premium is Rs. 235/- and deceased’s sum insured was Rs. two Lacs and its premium was Rs. 300/- and the complainant is nominee of the said Balwinder Singh being wife. Deceased Balwinder Singh had paid total Rs.3,145/- which is clear from the cover note of the policy. The husband of the complainant has 1/2 Killa of land and he sown Paddy crop in his fields. On 26.8.2016, the husband of the complainant sprayed the Paddy crop and due to the effect of pesticide which was being sprayed by him to his paddy crop and resultantly with the effect of the pesticide Balwinder Singh died in Khehra Hospital at Valtoha. The complainant and her family members have not conducted post mortem of the dead body of the said Balwinder Singh and he was cremated without postmortem due to illiteracy of the complainant and her family members. A complaint was moved by the complainant on 7.9.2016 to SDM Patti and SHO Police Station Khalra inquired the matter and gave report on 12.9.02016 that said Balwinder Singh had died due to consume of the medicine. The police has also received a Panchyatnama dated 11.9.2016 about the death of Balwinder Singh son of Ram Singh resident of Madda Mathra Bhagi. The deceased, Balwinder Singh was of the age of 40 years and was doing agricultural work and also Secretary of Beharwal CASS Ltd. and he was getting salary of Rs. 20,000/- and was earning more than Rs. 40,000/- per month. The deceased was hale and hearty and he could survive up to the age of at least 90 years. The complainant was nominated by Balwinder Singh his nominee to recover the insured amount if the death of Balwinder Singh occurs before the maturity of the above said insurance policy. The deceased Balwinder Singh was back bone of the complainant’s family members and they were dependent upon the deceased and have been deprived of his love and affection of Balwinder Singh and income which he would have earned. After the death of Balwinder Singh, the complainant approached the opposite parties to release the amount of insured on the life of Balwinder Singh and the complainant submitted the documents demanded by the opposite parties, including the death certificate and the original policy. The complainant approached the opposite parties to pay the insured amount i.e. Rs. Seven Lacs of the policy which was insured by Balwinder Singh on 1.4.2016 up to 31.3.2017 and premium was to be paid Rs. 3,145/-. The first installment of the policy i.e. Rs. 3,145/- was paid on 1.4.2016. The complainant had given the required information regarding the death of Balwinder Singh for death claim under policy and information were produced to the officials of the opposite party No. 1 i.e. company and the officials of the opposite parties kept mum for several months since the death of the insured Balwinder Singh and just in order to save their skin and money have declined the genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant has prayed that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are equally, jointly liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. Seven Lacs alongwith interest and special costs on account of default, which the complainant and other family members have right to recover on account of death of Balwinder Singh and the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are liable to pay the same to the complainant and other family. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 may also be directed to pay Rs. Three Lacs as compensation to the mental and physical harassment of the complainant and the opposite parties may also be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 22,000/- to the complainant by way of costs of litigation counsel fee and pendentilte interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and he had suppressed material facts from this Commission. Regarding alleged occurrence, the complainant has not got registered any FIR neither any post mortem was conducted of the deceased Balwinder Singh from where one can confirm the cause of death of Balwinder Singh as the complainant later on in order to achieve ulterior motive and have final monitory benefits has concocted the story mentioned in the present complaint. The complainant has alleged in the complaint in P.S. Khalra District Tarn Taran, after a delay of 18 days where nothing was recorded regarding the cause of death nor regarding the delay and while filing present complaint concocted story put forward by the complainant. The complainant may be put strict proof regarding the factum of insurance under which deceased Balwinder Singh was covered and further the deceased was whether serving as secretory with the Beharwali Multipurpose corporate Agriculture Services Society Limited and further the deceased was more than 45 years old. It is denied that the complainant Narinder Kaur is nominee of Balwinder Singh. As far the detailed instructions and guidelines of the policy issued which cover a death due to an accident in the absence of postmortem report, it could not be confirmed that the death was on account of accident, relevant documents were not produced by the complainant due to which the claim case was not tenable and the claim case was declared as no claims and the file was closed. Even, the opposite parties have appointed Mr. Vikas Gupta who was deputed for investigating the circumstances and loss regarding which detail report was furnished by the investigator. The present complaint is not maintainable and same may be dismissed with heavy costs. On Merits, it was pleaded that on 26.8.2016, the husband of the complainant sprayed the paddy crop and due to the effect of pesticide which was being sprayed by him to his paddy crop and resultantly with the effect of the pesticide Balwinder Singh died in Khehra Hospital at Valtoha, due to pesticide. The complainant and her family member have not conducted the post mortem of the dead body of said Balwinder Singh and he was cremated without post mortem due to illiteracy of the complainant and her family member. The deceased was hale and hearty and he could survive up to the age of at least 90 years. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3 The opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the present complaint against the replying opposite party is not legally maintainable. The deceased himself obtained the insurance policy from the opposite party No. 1 and paid the premium directly and the replying opposite party has no concern with the alleged insurance policy of the deceased and as such, the present complaint is not legally maintainable against the replying opposite party and does not lie and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant or her deceased husband is not consumer of the opposite party No. 3 and present complaint qua the replying opposite party is liable to be dismissed. There is no privity of contract between the replying opposite party and the replying opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant regarding the alleged policy and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the replying opposite party. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party No. 3 and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and of necessary parties. The opposite party No. 3 has unnecessarily been dragged in the present case. The other legal heirs of the deceased have not been impleaded in the present case who are also necessary and proper parties. On merits, it was pleaded that Balwinder Singh was working as secretary in Coop. Society The Beharwal M.P. C.A.S.S. Ltd. The complainant claims the compensation on account of policy obtained by the deceased from the opposite party No. 1 and as such, only the opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay the compensation, if the complainant is found entitled for the same. The opposite party No. 3 has unnecessarily dragged in the present complaint. The husband of the complainant obtained the policy from the opposite party No. 1 and as such, only the opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay the compensation, if the complainant is found entitled by this Commission. Neither any alleged request was made to the opposite party No. 3 nor the opposite party No. 3 is liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4 Previously Sh. Sarvan Singh appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 but later on failed to appear on behalf of opposite party No. 2, therefore, consequently, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.5.2018.
5 To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, affidavit of Sh. Swaran Singh son of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh resident of village and Post Office Valtoha Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran Ex. C-2 alongwith documents Ex. C-3 to Ex C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Ranjan G.M. Iffco Tokio Ex. OP1/A alongwith documents Ex. OP1/1 to Ex. OP1/27 and closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhwinder Pal Singh Branch Manager Ex. OP3/1 and closed the evidence.
6 We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No. 1, 3 and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.
7 The case of the complainant is that her husband Balwinder Singh obtained insurance policy from the opposite party No. 1 and the husband of the complainant got himself insured separately under the life insured policies No. 47021566 for a sum of Rs. 7 Lacs and paid its premium of Rs.1500+300+250+50 total Rs. 1,800/- and personal insurance @ One Lac and its premium is Rs. 235/- and deceased’s sum insured was Rs. two Lacs and its premium was Rs. 300/- and the complainant is nominee of the said Balwinder Singh being wife. On 26.8.2016 the husband of the complainant was sprayed his Paddy crop and the husband of the complainant has died due to inhalation of pesticide. After that the complainant has lodged the claim to the opposite party No. 1. But the opposite party has declined the insurance claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 17.1.2017 Ex. OP1/1 due to the reason that the complainant has not submitted the Post Mortem Report of the deceased and as per policy conditions, it stipulates that in the event of death, it is required to make a post mortem examination of the body of the insured Person and in the absence of Post Mortem Report it could not be confirmed that the death was on account of accident. The opposite party No. 1 has placed on record one document Ex. OP1/4 which is issued by Police station Khalra in which it is written that Balwinder Singh died due inhalation of pesticide. Ex. OP1/5 Panchyatnama also shows that Balwinder Singh died due to inhalation of pesticide and same is signed by Gurvail Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of village Maddar Mathra Bhagi, Nambardar Punjab Singh so of Amrik Singh resident of village Beharwal, Amrik Singh Sarpanch of village Maddar Mathara Bhagi, Sahib Singh (Member) son of Baldev Singh resident of village Maddar Mathra Bhagi, Puran Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh resident of village Mathra Bhagi, Kulwant Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of village Maddar Mathra Bhagi. Statement of Narinder Kaur, Ex. OP1/6 also shows that Balwinder Singh died due to inhalation of pesticide. The opposite party No. 1 has also placed on record another document i.e. certificate issued by Secretary The Tarn Taran C.M.S.S. Ltd. Valtoha (Tarn Taran) Ex. OP1/10 in which it is written that Balwinder Singh died due to inhalation of pesticide. The opposite party No. 1 has appointed the surveyor report of which is Ex. OP1/3 in which on the point of death, he has given his finding as follows:-
It has been claimed that on 25.8.2016 at about 7 PM Balwinder Singh (now deceased) was spraying the pesticides in Paddy crop and in the meantime he came under the inhalation of pesticides and got unconscious. He was taken to home. His condition got critical and he was taken to Khera Hospital Valtoha and referred from there to Amandeep Hospital Amritsar but he died on the way and was declared brought dead by the Doctors.
The said surveyor in its report has also written that he has visited the P.S. Khalra District Tarn Taran and contacted with concerned Head Officer, Sukhraj Singh. He informed him that DDR No. 10 dated 12.9.2016 has been lodged about the said accident.
8 All the above said documents shows that Balwinder Singh has died and the opposite party No. 1 itself placed on record the ibid documents which show that Balwinder Singh died due to inhalation of pesticides. The dispute raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 is only that the complainant had not got conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Balwinder Singh and the complainant is not entitled to the claim, as per terms of letter dated 17.1.2017 issued by opposite party No. 1. The people at the village are innocent and they do not blame anybody for the cause of the death in such like death. They do not know the nitty-gritty of law and they are rustic villagers. In this case, all the statements of villagers and Panchyatnama signed by Nambardar, Sarpanch, Member etc. of village who are respectable persons of the village and it shows that Balwinder Singh died due to inhalation of pesticides. But merely on account of non-production of post mortem report, it cannot be concluded that the death of the insured was not as a result of due to inhalation of pesticide. The opposite party No. 1 cannot deny the claim of the complainant on the ground of Post Mortem Report. In 2005 (1) CPC 533 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Smt. Nidhi Sahi) the case of the complainant was that the death of the insured occurred in the scooter accident and her claim was mainly challenged on the ground that no FIR was lodged nor any Post Mortem Examination had been performed on the body of the deceased. However, the factum of death was duly proved and was supported by statement of witness, who was pillion rider of the scooter at the time of accident. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum. In the appeal the same was upheld on the ground that the factum of death had been duly proved. It becomes very much clear from that judgment that even in the absence of the FIR or the Post Mortem Report, the factum of death in a particular way can be proved by producing other evidence. Similarly in 2006 (II) CPC 599 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rita Devi It was held that non-production of the Post Mortem Examination report cannot be made a ground for repudiation of the claim. The facts were similar in 2009 (1) CLT 74 ( Parkash Kaur and others Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited) In that case the insured had died due to snake bite and evidence was produced for proving that fact. However, there was no post mortem report or police report for proving that fact. It was held therein that the claim cannot be repudiated simply on the ground that the post mortem report or the police report was not produced especially when the death by snake bite is proved from other evidence.
9 A perusal of above, it is clear that the opposite party No. 1 cannot deny to pay the claim on the ground of non-production of post mortem report. The deceased died during the currency period of insurance policy. The case of the complainant stands proved on the record. The act and conduct of the opposite party No.1 amounts to sheer negligence as well as deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to suitable compensation and costs of litigation from the opposite party No. 1.
10 In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to make insurance claim to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant has also been harassed by the opposite party No. 1, as such the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 7,500/- ( Rs. Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of filing the present complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
