FA.No.696/2008 against CC.No.20/2008 District Consumer Forum,

Between-

1.The   Insurance Company Ltd.

    Head Office - GE Plaza,

    Air Port Road,     Maharashtra,

2.The   Insurance Company Ltd.

   Branch Office- GSR Complex,

3.The   Insurance Company  Ltd.

    Branch office,    

…Appellants/And

Eruvala Aged about 30 years,

R/

Elkathurthi Karimnagar District.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellants                 -  Counsel for the Respondent             - -

QUORUM  THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per

-------

1.         Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.  Respondent did not choose to appear before this Commission despite service of notice.

2.         The opposite parties, the

3.         The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband   While so, on 14.12.2006 at about 9.00 am, while he was looking at his cotton growth, a poisonous snake has bitten him and on that, he fell unconscious.  While on his way to MGM Hospital, he died.  On that, she lodged a complaint with the police,   She filed complaint claiming the policy amount.

4.         The Insurance Company resisted the claim.  While admitting that it had issued an insurance policy as alleged in the complaint, the death being due to a snake bite, the proviso 2 (F) of policy terms and conditions excludes the liability.  Therefore, they were not liable to pay any compensation. 

5.         The complainant filed an affidavit along with Exs.A.1 to A.6, while the Insurance Company did not file any document.

6.         The District Forum after considering the facts opined that the Insurance Company cannot deny the benefit to his legal heir, when snake bite occurred suddenly, which he had never expected.  Therefore, it directed the Insurance Company to pay the policy benefits of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9 percent per annum and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

7.         Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not consider the terms and conditions of the policy, particularly exclusion terms of the policy.  Since the proviso 2 (F) of the terms and conditions of the policy excludes the liability of the Insurance Company in case of snake bite, they were not liable to pay any amount. 

8.         It is not in dispute that   It is also not in dispute that he died on 14.12.2006 due to snake bite evidenced under Ex.A.3,  copy of FIR, Ex.A.4, inquest report, Ex.A.5, post mortem report and Ex.A.6, copy of final report of Inspector of Police,   The insurance company contends that the terms and conditions of the policy exclude their liability in the event of death due to a snake bite.  Evidently, the District Forum did not consider the terms of the policy.  A perusal of the terms and conditions of the policy, marked as Ex.A.1, would undoubtedly exclude the liability of the Insurance Company in case of death due to snake bite.  The said clause reads as follows-

snake bite (g) drowning risks.-

By virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company cannot be mulcted with payment of the insurance amount.  The District Forum did not consider this aspect at all. 

         Therefore, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.      

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER               MALE MEMBER

Dt-06.08.2008.

Vvr.