BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 31st day of May, 2007
C.C. No.115/2006
Smt. V. Bazaramma, W/o Late V. Venkanna,
H.No. 2-84, Sunkesula Village, Kurnool District. .. COMPLAINANT
Verses
M/s New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager,
H.No. 40/526-12 I Floor, HDCT Complex, R.S. Road, Kurnool. .. OPPOSITE PARTY
This complaint coming on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Shivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant and P. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party upon the perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the Complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act., 1986 seeking a direction on the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant the policy amount Rs. 1,00,000/- with 24% interest from the date of death, Rs. 25,000/- as compensation, costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the Complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case is that Complainant’s husband V. Venkanna paid Rs. 240/- to Opposite Party for covering his life for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Opposite Party issued a policy bearing No. 611500/47/04/00197 for 5 years from 06-09-2004 to 05-09-2009 and nominated the Complainant as his nominee. On 17-03-2005 the policy holder Venkanna after spraying pesticides in his land washed the Aluminum tins of pesticides in the stagnant water canal and on the same day night the Policy holder went to his land for night watch of the crop by taking his meals. At about 9 P.M., the policy holder had his meals and forgotten that he washed pesticide tins in the canal water, drank the canal water after having dinner. Thereafter, the policy holder smelt the pesticides and got sensation of vomiting and the son of the deceased had taken him to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, nearing Munagalapadu enroute to Kurnool, the policy holder died and it is purely accidental and the son of the deceased gave a Complainant to Gudur Police Station and a case was registered U/s 174-Cr.PC and in the Postmortem Report the Doctors found 120 ml of cream colour harbid liquid mucosa congested with small of pesticides. Thereafter the Complainant submitted claim form and the Opposite Party repudiated the claim in their letter dated 07-07-2006 on false and baseless grounds. Hence, the Complainant resorted to forum for redressal.
3. The Complainant is support of her case relied on the following documents viz., (1) Policy No. 611500/47/04/00197 issued to V. Venkanna (2) Copy of FIR in Cr.No. 12/05 of Police Station, Gudur (3) Copy of Inquest Report (4) Copy of PM Report (5) Office copy of legal notice dated 24-03-2006 along with courier receipt and (6) Repudiation letter dated 07-07-2006, besides to the sworn affidavit of the Complainant in reiteration of her complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A6 for its appreciation in this case. The Complainant caused interrogatories to Opposite Party and suitablely replied to the interrogatories of Opposite Party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the Complainant the Opposite Party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of Opposite Party submits that the deceased has taken and Individual Janata Personnel Accident Policy No. 611500/47/04/ 00197. After death of Policy holder it received claim intimation and deputed an investigator to find out the cause of death of Policy holder and which reveals that the death of V. Venkanna is not accidental and it is clearly a case of suicide owing to ill health as he was suffering from Asthama, Knee pain and Vision problems and the Doctors declared that he could survive only on medication. The contradict versions of the both the son and the wife of the deceased clearly confirm that the death is not accidental and it is an act of voluntary and intentional one and the policy covers only when the death is accidental and is caused by out ward violent and visible means and resulting in death and the policy does not covers death by intentional self injury, suicide or under the influence of intoxication. After careful scrutiny the Opposite Party repudiated the claim on 07-07-2006 and there is no deficiency of service on part of Opposite Party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In substitution of their case the Opposite Party relied on the following documents viz., (1) Policy on the name of V. Venkanna and its terms and conditions (2) Forensic laboratory opinion dated 20-04-2005 on chemical analysis of Viscera of deceased Venkanna and (3) Investigation Report dated 03-10-2005 besides to the sworn affidavit of the Opposite Party in reiteration of his written version avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex. B1 to B3 for its appreciation in this case and replied to the interrogatories of Complainant and caused interrogatories to Complaint.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the Complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service?
8. It is the case of the Complainant that her husband V. Venkanna died on 17-03-2005 by accidental consumption of canal water where he washed pesticides tins after spraying. On the claim preffered by the Complainant the Opposite Party repudiated stating that there are no violent, visible bodily injuries on the deceased body and the postmortem report says the deceased stomach contains liquid with pesticide smell.
9. The Opposite Party in their written version submits that the deceased V. Venkanna has obtained Janata Personnel Accident Policy by paying Rs. 240/- but as per the policy terms and conditions the risks which covers the accidental death is one that when the death is caused by out ward vident and visible means like accidental slipping down or falling from mountains, bitting insects as snakes or animals etc. The policy does not covers the death caused by intentional self injury, suicide or under the influence of intoxication. The counsel for Opposite Party strongly argued that the death of Venkanna is not accidental as per the terms and conditions of the policy hence the deceased death is not covered under the said policy. The Ex.A1 to A6 relied by the Complainant no where shows that death of deceased Venkanna as accidental one but on the other hand the Complainant alleges that the death was due to drinking of canal water mixed with pesticides which is not accidental and not covered under the policy issued by the Opposite Party and the Complainant did not place any supporting material in substantiating their plea, merely stating that the death is accidental doesn’t suffice.
10. The Ex.A4 is the attested xerox copy of postmortem examination dated 18-03-2005 on page 3 in column stomach contents, mentions that stomach contains 120 ml of cream colour harbid liquid mucosa congested with small of pesticides, in the said exhibit cause of death was not mentioned but stomach contained 120 ml of cream colour harbid liquid with smell of pesticides. The contention of the Complainant is that the deceased had consumed canal water where pesticide tins are washed in the morning, then the stomach should not contain 120 ml of cream colour harbid liquid with small of pesticides. There is not dispute that the stomach of the deceased contained 120 ml of liquid with smell of pesticides. Therefore, what appears in that the deceased had voluntarily consumed pesticides and it is a voluntary act and not accidental covered under the policy, hence, the death of deceased is not covered under the policy issued by the Opposite Party.
11. The Complainant in this cause failed to prove that the deceased death is an accidental one and covered under the policy issued by the Opposite Party, hence the Complainant is not remaining entitled to the assured amount under the said policy.
12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Computer Operator transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 31st day of May, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Policy No. 611500/47/04/00197 issued to V. Venkanna
Ex.A2 Copy of FIR in Cr.No. 12/05 of Police Station, Gudur
Ex.A3 Copy of Inquest Report
Ex.A4 Copy of PM Report
Ex.A5 Office copy of legal notice dated 24-03-2006 along with courier receipt
Ex.A6 Repudiation letter dated 07-07-2006
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri. M. Shivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. P. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
