1.       Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2.       The revision petition questions the correctness of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in First Appeal No. 122 of 2014, arising out of the order of the District Commission dated 12.12.2023 in CC/168/2011.

3.       The complaint filed by the revisionist was allowed by the District Commission holding that the complainant had suffered an injury and the accident had occurred which was covered under the policy and was liable to be indemnified, keeping in view the evidence on record. It was held that the indemnification was permissible and admissible in terms of the policy. Accordingly, the District Commission has awarded a sum of Rs.12,679/- as well as Rs.84,857/- together with interest @ 6% per annum, coupled with Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.

4.       The amount of Rs.12,679/- was awarded on account of medical expenses incurred and the amount of Rs.84,857/- was awarded on account of the professional loss suffered by the complainant for a period of temporary disability that he suffered for 192 days.

5.       The Insurance Company filed an appeal and the order passed by the District Commission was reversed on the ground that the complainant had only suffered a twisting injury of the right knee and it did not amount to slipping or falling down as alleged and hence this twisting of the leg could not be treated as a condition precedent for awarding indemnification in terms of the policy.

6.       Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainant has preferred this revision contending that the finding recorded by the State Commission with regard to the nature of injury is not in conformity with the facts on record  and even otherwise  is erroneous, in as much as, the consequential injury was only on account of a fall of the complainant and not otherwise. There was no other evidence, except   that was led on behalf of the complainant, so as to dislodge the claim of the revisionist in the manner in which he has slipped or fallen down.

7.         The contention is that even if the complainant had written a letter  indicating twisting as a cause of the injury, the same could not be denied that the injury had occurred due to the complainant having fallen down and as a consequence of his medical treatment he also suffered professional losses. The contention is that the nature of injury is indemnifiable in terms of the coverage under the policy, which is a bodily injury resulting solely and directly from an accident caused by external violent  and visible and, which according to the complainant stands supported by ratio of the order passed by this Commission in the case of Mrs. Padma Ramanathan Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., OP/173/2000 decided on 29.04.2008. A copy of the said order has been placed on record.

8.       Mr. Maibam N. Singh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the twisting injury of the right knee was not an accident, which could be said to be a bodily injury directly because of any external or violent mean. He therefore submits that the State Commission was justified in reversing the order passed by the District Commission.

9.       Having considered the submissions raised, the issue with regard to the meaning of the words used in the policy is exactly the same that was considered by the Division Bench of this Commission in the case of Mrs. Padma Ramanathan (Supra). Reference can be had to paragraph 2 of the said order, where identical terms of the policy as involved herein was referred to, and then after having heard learned counsel for the parties, the ratio culled out by this Commission after examining the relevant authorities on the law of insurance was that the injury was a violent injury for which reference was made to Insurance Law by MacGillivray & Parkington, which is again gainfully reproduced herein under:

“1791. Violent means. Often the element of violence in an accident will be as evident as the bodily injury; the insured may, for example, be bitten by a dog or knocked down by a train or merely slip and fall. In other cases it will not be so obvious and it has been held that the phrase violent means is the antithesis of without any violence at all. Thus injury from any extra exertion such as stopping to pick up a marble may be injury by violent means and the phrase seems to include almost any external cause of injury such as drowning or the inhalation of gas.”

10.     A perusal of the said authority as relied on and the ratio of the aforesaid order leaves no room for doubt that in the present case also the complainant had also suffered the injury on account of a slip and a fall and which is squarely covered by the illustration that has been approved in the aforesaid order. No such consideration was made by the State commission, while reversing the order of the District Commission.

11.     Consequently, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the State Commission and the reasoning as contained in paragraph 6 and 7 thereof cannot be sustained. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside and accordingly, we allow the revision as there is a material irregularity as discussed hereinabove. The order of the State Commission dated 06.04.2015 is set aside and that of the District Commission dated 11.12.2013 is restored.

11.     The Revision Petition is accordingly allowed.