BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT-HYDERABAD.FA.No.566/2008 against CC.No.46/2007 District Forum, Kadapa.
Between-
TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Rep. by its General Manager/Managing Director,
Raheja Towers, 9th Floor, Beta Wing,
177 Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
…Appellant/O.P.No.2.
And
1.Tamatam Gangamma, W/o.late Subba Reddy,
Hindu, Aged about 42 years.
2.Vundela Nagalakshmi W/o.Obul Reddy,
Aged about 27 years.
3.Tamatam Gururajasekhara Reddy, S/o.late Subba
Reddy, Hindu, aged about 19 years.
All are residents of Vasudevapuram, Porumamilla Mandal,
Kadapa District
…R.1 to R.3/Complainants
4.The Road Safety Club Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its General Manager/Managing Director,
2A, II Floor, Prakasham Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 017.
…R.4/O.P.No.1
Counsel for the Appellant - Mr.K.Kishore Kumar Reddy.
Counsel for the Respondents - Admn.Stage.
QUORUM-THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
-------
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
1. This is an appeal preferred by the 2nd opposite party Insurance Company against the order of District Forum, Kadapa, dated 20.02.2008 in CC.No.46/2007 directing the appellant (O.P.2) and respondent No.4(O.P.No.1) to pay Rs.50,000/-, the sum assured, with interest at 9percent per annum from the date of death till the date of realization, besides damages to a tune of Rs.3,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we deem it that it is a fit case where the matter could be disposed of at the stage of admission. The 1st complainant is the wife, 2nd complainant is the daughter and 3rd complainant is the son of the deceased Subba Reddy. Subba Reddy had taken an insurance policy with the appellant covering the period from 10.11.2004 to 09.11.2005 for accidental death. While so, on the night of 22.07.2005 while Subba Reddy was sleeping in his house, he was bitten by a snake. He was immediately shifted to Lady Fathima Hospital, Porumamilla and was admitted as an inpatient. On 25.07.2005 he was discharged and was taken to his house. He was not cured. Unfortunately, on the early hours of 08.08.2005 he was succumbed to the snake bite and the Panchayat Secretary of Akkalareddypalli gave a report to the State House Officer, Porumamilla, who registered it as a case in Cr.No.42/2005 and con- ducted inquest on the dead body of the insured in the presence of Panchayatdars, who opined that Subba Reddy died due to snake bite. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint claiming the above stated amounts.
3. The 1st opposite party, Road Safety Club, resisted the complaint stating that the Road Safety Club is an independent Private Limited Company. It has nothing to do with M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. The Road Safety Cub Pvt. Ltd., Chennai or Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai or Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai are not having any branch office. Therefore, non impleading of M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. is bad under law. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The 1st opposite party also filed additional counter alleging that the Insurance Company alone liable to pay the claim amount.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed counter resisting the complaint. It alleged that it has made its own enquiry. The letter issued by Dr.Francies of OLF Hospital, Porumamilla, shows that there were no physical or visible snake bite marks. During their verification, they have consulted Dr.M.Ravinder Reddy, Professor and HOD Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, who opined that the treatment did not justify an opinion of snake bite and it might be due to some poison. The death of the insured was natural and not accidental. They need not to pay any amount. Though the deceased might have received a bite by an unknown insect on 21.07.2005 and thought the deceased was admitted in the OLF Hospital, Porumamilla, there was no immediate FIR to that effect. Only after the death of the insured, the FIR was registered. The Post Mortem certificate discloses that the death could not be caused due to snake bite. Therefore, it is only a natural death. They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The Complainants filed documents, Exs.A.1 to A.10 on their behalf and got P.W.1 examined. The opposite parties have also filed documents, Exs.B.1 to B.11.
6. The District Forum after considering the fact that the death was not natural but it was only due to snake bite, directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- the sum assured, with interest at 9percent per annum from the date of death till the date of realization, besides Rs.3,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd opposite party preferred this appeal contending that the death of Subba Reddy was not due to snake bite, and therefore, the Insurance Company need not pay any amount to the complainants. They prayed that the appeal be allowed.
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant (i.e. the 2nd opposite party) has insured the life of the deceased, evidenced under Ex.B.2 Group Personal Accident Policy. It is also not in dispute that the insured died on 08.08.2005. The documents as well as the affidavit evidence of P.W.1 disclose that the deceased was admitted in the first instance in OLF Hospital, Porumamilla on the ground that a snake had bitten him on the night of 22.07.2005 while he was sleeping in his house, and was discharged on 25.07.2005 and later he succumbed to the injuries. Immediately, the Panchayat Secretary of Akkalareddypalli, gave report to the Station House Officer, Porumamilla, who registered the case as Cr.No.42/2005. Post Mortem was also conducted. The doctor was not sure whether the death was due to snake bite or for some other bite. He reasoned that the death might be due to insect bite. Since the death was not natural by virtue of the terms of the policy, the appellant was liable to pay the policy amount.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the very doctor, who was examined as P.W.1 did not observe that the death was due to snake bite. He admits that the Post Mortem did not reveal that the death was due to snake bite. However, he ruled out the possibility that it was natural death. According to him it might be 'due to an insect bite'. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that no FIR was registered immediately on the night of 22.07.2005 when Subba Reddy alleged to have been bitten by a snake.
10. We may mention here that nobody would give a police complaint against a snake bite, nor any police station register the case. When only he succumbed to death due to snake bite, a report was given and post mortem was conducted in order to over rule that the death was not due to any other reason. It is undoubtedly not a natural death. Since the death is due to bite either by insect or snake, not being a natural death, the claimants are entitled to the amount as per the terms of the policy. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount is not sustainable. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt-02.05.2008.
Vvr.
