FA.No.135/2007 against CD.No.140/2004 District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar.

Between:

The National Insurance Company Ltd.

Divisional Office: Rep. by its Manager,

R/o.2-6-103, Near Municipal Office,

Karimnagar.

…Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

Rena Saritha, W/o.Sarangapani,

Aged : 25 Years, Occ: Household,

R/o.Errabelli, V/o.Bheemadevarapalli Mandal

Karimnagar Dist.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant         : Smt.SAV Ratnam.

Counsel for the Respondent     : Respondent appeared in person.

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

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

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

*******

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar, directing it to pay the amount covered under the policy together with interest and costs.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband, Rena Sarangapani, joined as a member in “Mulkanoor Purushula Podupu Samithi” introduced by the Mulkanoor Co-Op. Rural Bank, Mulkanoor, which had insured its Members with the opposite party Insurance Company under policy No.551300/47/02/9601475 by paying the premium and the nominee will get a sum of Rs.50  When a wooden log accidentally fell on his right foot, he sustained injuries.  Immediately he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal.  While undergoing treatment, he died on 19.5.2003.  When the complainant lodged her claim, the Insurance Company repudiated it on the ground that no FIR or Post Mortem was submitted.  Aggrieved by the said repudiation, she filed complaint claiming Rs.50

3.         The Insurance Company resisted the case.  It alleged that the deceased might have developed injuries due to some chronic disease.  There was no FIR or Post Mortem Report to show that the injuries resulted in his death.  Therefore, the claim was repudiated, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.         The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.7, while the Insurance Company filed affidavit evidence of its Manager, but did not file any document.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the death was due to receipt of injuries in an accident, and therefore she was entitled to the amount.

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that there was no evidence to show that the deceased had sustained injuries in an accident which led to his death.  His death was natural.  Therefore, it prayed that the appeal be allowed. 

7.         The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the husband of the complainant was covered by Group Insurance Policy of Rs.50   It is not in dispute that he died on 19.05.2003 while taking treatment in MGM Hospital, Warangal.  The complainant asserts that while he was loading wooden logs in a cart at his agricultural well, they fell accidentally on his right foot wherein he sustained injuries.  He immediately admitted in the MGM Hospital, Warangal wherein he succumbed to injuries.  This fact was confirmed by the very Medical Officer under Ex.A.1 certificate.  This was reiterated by the certificate issued by the Grama Panchayat, Errabelli under Ex.A.2, besides the affidavit of the villager marked as Ex.A.3.  The Insurance Company except contending that the death was not accidental did not let in any evidence to rebut the evidence of the complainant.  The question of reporting the matter to the Police or conducting post mortem in case of the death of this nature would not happen.  In view of the accidental fall of wooden logs on his right foot, he cannot complain against anybody.  The death of the complainant’s husband cannot be said to be natural in the circumstances, more so when the doctor at MGM Hospital opined confirming the said fact.  We do not see any mis-appreciation of facts or law in this regard.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

9.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed, however, no costs. 

PRESIDENT

MEMBER

DtVvr.