KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.148/04
JUDGMENT DATED.25.06.08
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Branch Office, KasturbaBuilding, : APPELLANT
Pulamon Junction,
Kottarakkara.
(By Adv.M.Nizamudeen)
Vs
1.Joseph P.Mathew,
Pallicheruvil, Villooni.P.O., : RESPONDENTS
Kottayam 686 008.
2.Managing Director,
Malayala Manorama,
P.B.No.26, Kottayam-1.
(By Adv.Santhosh Mathew &
Adv.R.Chandrapraveen)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
The appellant is the second opposite party/insurance company in OP.NO.579/01 who is under orders to pay the insurance claim of Rs.1 lakh with interest.
2. It is the case of the complainant who is the legal heir of the deceased that his father who died on 26.8.2000 was covered by the group accident insurance policy issued by the appellant with respect to the subscribers of Malayala Manoram daily. The deceased died due to drowning in a flood affected area. Postmortem etc was conducted. The claim was repudiated by the appellant alleging that death was due to epilepsy and not due to accident.
3. The opposite party the Managing Director of the Malayala Manorama daily was also opposed the complaint but admitted the deceased was a subscriber and had applied for being included in the Malayala Manorama subscribers insurance scheme. But he has not paid any consideration for being included in the scheme. The above opposite party had also supported the case of the insurer that the deceased died not due to accident but on account of the pre-existing epilepsy. The case of the second opposite party is that the death was not due to accident and hence they are not liable to pay the policy amount. It is pointed out that the water level at the spot was only 48 cm.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the affidavit of petitioner; Exts.A1 to A4; DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.B1 to B5.
5. It is the case of the appellant that the coverage is confined to accidental deaths and in the instant case the police case records would reveal that the cause of death was on account of epilepsy. It is mentioned in the FIS itself rendered by his close relatives that he was suffering from epilepsy for the last 10 to 15 years and was under treatment. DW1 is the investigator of the opposite parties who has filed Ext.B1 investigation report and DW2 the ASI who has proved Ext.A1 and A2, and Exts.B2 to B5. The police case records including the FIS, scene mahazar and the final report would show that the death was due to drowning and that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy. Hence the conclusion, according to the appellant can only be that the deceased died on account of the on set of epilepsy and as a consequence he fell into the channel wherein depth of water was only 48cm.
6. Ext.B2 copy of the scene mahazar would show that the depth of water was only 48cm. We find that the postmortem report mentions that the death was due to drowning and anti mortem injuries are noted on the forehead. It has to be noted that diveat cause of death was caused not epilepsy. Even in the case of a normal person in case even on account of an accidental fall and if head is hit and the person became unconscious even for a short time death would result if the fall is into water and even if the depth of water was 48cm. We find that no sufficient evidence has been adduced to establish that the deceased fell into the water on account of epilepsy. In the circumstances we find no reason to deviate from the findings of the Forum below. The order of the Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
R.AV
