Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1067/2014

Rambal Meena S/o Sh. Sumrati lal Meena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundram Allayas Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pram Prakash Bunkar

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1067/2014

 

Rambal Meena s/o Sumarti Lal Meena r/o Village Agawali, Tehsil Sikrai, Distt.Dausa.

Vs.

Royal Sunderam Alliance Insurance Co. through Br.Manager, 607-611, 6^th floor, Trimurti, V Jai City, Point D 52, Ahinsa Circle, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 5.8.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali- Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr.Prem Prakash counsel for the appellant

Mr.J.K.Agarwal counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Dausa dated 26.11.2014 by which the complaint was disallowed.

 

The complainant submitted a complaint before the learned DCF stating that his father had taken an accident insurance from opposite party company on 28.12.2012 and his father died of a snake bite on 18.4.2013 while he was working in his field. The complainant filed an accident death claim with the Insurance Company which was repudiated. The Insurance Company submitted before the learned DCF that the claim has been submitted on the basis of false documents. The learned DCF accepted this contention on the ground of two contradictory reports of Dr.Dhananjai Meena who in his postmortem report opined that father of the complainant died of a snake bite while he submitted a letter in his own handwriting to the Insurance Company Ex.3 that he was pressurized by the villagers and the Sarpanch for giving the opinion regarding death by snake bite.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that they

3

 

had submitted an application before the learned DCF for summoning the doctor before the learned DCF but the learned DCF did not pass any order on this application. He argues that cross examination of the doctor would have clarified this point.

 

The learned counsel for the company has argued that the case is totally suspicious. There is no evidence that the complainant's father died of snake bite and the documents are forged. There is no deficiency on the part of the company.

 

We have heard the respective counsels.

 

The circumstances in this case raise reasonable doubts about the death of the complainant's father by snake bite. The statements of witnesses recorded by the police reveal that complainant's father had gone to the field at 3.00 a.m. for harvesting and his son and other witnesses reached the spot at 6.00 a.m. Some of the witnesses state that deceased was unconscious and other state that deceased was half conscious and stated that he had been bitten by snake. Such contradictions are significant. After the incident the deceased was not taken to any doctor but only the Sarpanch was informed and Sarpanch took him to Sikandra hospital where his

4

 

postmortem was conducted and report prepared. The police was informed after four days of the incident. We also do not know how Dr. Dhananjai Meena, a government doctor conducted the postmortem simply on request of the villagers or the Sarpanch without requisition from the police or magistrate. The circumstances reveal that it was not an accidental death. We concure with the conclusion of the learned DCF, Dausa that this matter should be enquired into by a civil court where witnesses can be examined and corss-examined by the parties. Hence, we do not find any case of deficiency in service on the part of the company. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited a judgment of this Commission in Appeal No. 676/2012 but the facts of this case are different and that case related to the age of the deceased.

 

Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm