FA.No.374/2009 against  CC.No.100/2008 District Consumer Forum, Kadapa.

Between:

1.Varra Gangamma, W/o.late Narayana Reddy, 60 yrs.

2.V.Devakamma, D/o.late Narayana Reddy, 42 yrs.

3.VV.Krishna Reddy, S/o.late Narayana Reddy, 41 yrs.

4.V.Venkat Reddy, S/o.late Narayana Reddy, 40 yrs.

5.V.Adilakshmi, D/o.late Narayana Reddy, 38 yrs.

6.V.Raja Gopal Reddy, S/o.late Narayana Reddy, 34 yrs.

7.V.Saraswathi, D/o.late Narayana Reddy, 28 yrs.

All are r/o.Nallaiahgaripalli Village, Gondipalli Post,

Pendlimarry Mandal, Kadapa District.

…Appellants/Complainants.

And

1.The General Manager,

   The Kadapa District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd.

   Kadapa – 516 001 (A.P.)

2.The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

   Divisional Office, 2/184 (2) Lakshmiranga Road,

   Kadapa.

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Appellants        :  Mr.Manne Hari Babu.

Counsel for the Respondents    : Admn.stage.

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER,

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President

*******  

1.         Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2.         The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants.

3.         The case of the complainants in brief is that the 1^st complainant is the wife and complainants 2 to 7 are the children of late Varra Narayana Reddy, who took a personal accident policy, with the second respondent Insurance Company valid from 21.10.2005 to 20.10.2006 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.  While so, on 23.09.2006 at about 8.30 a.m. he sustained injuries when a buffaloe hit him with horns at his cattle shed.  Immediately, he was shifted to Tirumala Super Speciality Hospital, where Dr. P. Surendra Babu treated him.  He conducted laparoscopy and tracheoctomy.  The complainants being the L.Rs of the deceased are entitled to the benefit under the insurance policy.  Since the claim was repudiated for want of FIR, Inquest, Post Mortem Report, etc. they filed the complaint claiming the amount.

4.         R.1 did not choose to contest before the District Forum, and therefore, he was set exparte. 

5.         R.2 resisted the case.  While admitting the issuance of policy, however, it denied that the assured died in an accident that said to have taken place on 23.09.2006.  When the claimants had made claim they sought for FIR, inquest, etc. which they did not produce.  When they made enquiry they found that he died due to cancer, evident from the certificate issued by Dr.P.Surendra Babu.  He was of the opinion that the assured died of malignancy of throat cancer for which he gave treatment.  In fact he suppressed the ailment at the time when he had taken policy and, therefore, it was repudiated.  It, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.         The complainants in proof of their case filed the affidavit of the 1s complainant and got Exs.A.1 to A.11 marked, while the Insurance Company filed Exs.B.1 to B.4.

7.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the letter, Ex.B.3 and B.4 issued by Dr.P.Surendra Babu show that the deceased died of cancer for which he had taken treatment from him.  There is no evidence to show that the deceased had sustained injuries when a buffaloe hit him with horns  in his cattle shed,  resulting in an accidental death.  Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

8.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that the Insurance Company did not file the affidavit evidence of the investigator who collected evidence from the doctor to show that the deceased died of cancer.  It also did not file the affidavit evidence of the doctor, who treated the deceased for malignancy or in regard to the pre- existing ailment of the deceased.  Therefore, they prayed that the appeal be allowed.

9.         The point that arises for consideration is whether the death of the assured was due to accident or cancer?

10.       It is an undisputed fact that the complaints are the L.Rs of the deceased Narayana Reddy, who had taken personal accident policy for Rs.50,000/- evidenced under Ex.A.1 covering the period from 21.10.2005 to 20.10.2006.  The complainants alleged that when a buffaloe caused injuries to the insured with her horns on 23.09.2006 in his cattle shed, he was admitted in the hospital of one Dr.P.Surendra Babu  and died on 24.09.2006 succumbing  to the injuries.  Evidently, the complainants could not file any documentary evidence to show that the insured had sustained injuries on 23.09.2006 and succumbed to the injuries on 24.09.2006.  What all they filed was the death certificate, which was not in dispute, issued by Secretary, Grampanchayat.  On the other hand, the Insurance Company alleged that the insured had suffered throat cancer and was admitted in Tirumala Super Speciality ENT Hospital of Dr.P.Surendra Babu where an operation was conducted on 23.09.2006 and died on 24.09.2006.  Dr.P.Surendra Babu who said to have treated the assured for the said ailment gave a letter marked as Ex.B.3 and B.4.  He categorically mentioned in his letter that the deceased underwent a surgery and died of throat cancer.  The said fact was not denied by the complainants by leading any evidence.  At any rate, the evidence furnished by the Insurance Company was not contradicted by filing affidavit evidence of Dr.P.Surendra Babu. 

11.       Since it is their case that the insured had taken treatment with Dr. P. Surendra Babu  for the injuries caused while coming into contact with buffaloe horns.  Absolutely, there is no evidence whatsoever to state that the deceased had sustained injuries in an accident which resulted in the death.  On the other hand, the uncontroverted evidence show that the insured died of throat cancer.  Apart from the fact that he suppressed the ailment, the Insurance Company could prove that he died of throat cancer but not with the injuries on his body.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the District Forum did not commit any error in appreciating the evidence placed before it.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

12.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.  However, no costs. 

PRESIDENT   

MEMBER   

MEMBER

Dt:10.06.2009.