This is a case U/S 12, of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an award directing the O.P.s to pay Rs. 200,000/- due to accident with 9% interest, Rs. 30,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony and  Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.

The complainant’s case in short is that the  complainant was a worker of Raja Oil Mill located at Kantore More, P.O. Hemtabad, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. The complainant was purchased one insurance policy through his savings account being No- 32005241138 of O.P. No- 2 by paying a premium of Rs 100/- under Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy from O.P. No – 2 where sum assured of Rs 400,000/- valid from 23/07/2012 to 22/07/13. On 24/07/2012 the complainant while was engaged of putting iron rod through electric connection suddenly a small particle of iron ore entire to his left eye for his eyes started blinking got redden and started to fall tears. He was treated by doctors of various places but in vain rather doctor told that his left eye was lost .The complainant was intimated the matter to the O.Ps. with the claim for compensation but the O.Ps. did not pay heed to the claim of the complainant. Finding no alternative the complainant was forced to come before this Forum.

O.P. No1 appeared and contested this case by filling W.V denying the statement of complaint stating interalia that the complainant has no cause of action, that no claim was submitted with this O.P., the complainant was not sustained any injury by accident rather it was self implicated injury, this O.P. is not liable to pay any compensation, the case will be dismissed.

O.P. No 2 appeared and contested this case by filling W.V denying the statement of complainant stating interalia that the case is not maintainable, the complainant has unnecessary implead this O.P. as party to this case, the case of the complainant will be dismissed.                   

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

In support of his case the complainant has adduced his statement supported by an affidavit, oral evidence and some documents. The O.P. No 1 & 2 also have submitted their written version separately

We carefully perused the complaint petition, adduced evidence both oral and documentary by the complainant, W.V and argument advanced by the parties. From the complaint petition it appears that the complainant was an employee of an oil mill and at the time of working with an iron rod putting in the electric connection suddenly a small particle of iron ore entered in his left eye as a result he was sustained blinking got redden eyes and was started fallen tears. On the next day he was treated by Dr. Modak, thereafter treated at Ramlal Gulchha Eye Hospital Foundation at Nepal, Dr. P.R. Roy Memorial Lions Eye Hospital at Kaliyaganj and he was lastly treated under Dr. Debasish Dutta at Kolkata. Out of those documents it appears that one Sona Das was treated in the eye hospital at Nepal mentioned above and in the complaint petition no where it has stated that Prabir Kumar Das and Sona Das is same and identical person as such the said documents are not in consideration. Moreover other medical documents it is not proved that the left eye of the complainant have been lost his vision rather Dr. Debashis Dutta advised for better vision the complainant had to attend at Hyderabad Eye Hospital but the complainant did not do so. From the oral evidence the complainant has admitted that he is unable to submit permanent disablement certificate for his injury on the left eye rather on the cross examination by the O.P. he has admitted that next time I have not to treated  as I have no necessary for treatment. The O.P. NO-1 was the insurer clearly stated in the W.V. that no claim had been lodged by the complainant to there office or submitted any medical documents , though the complainant has stated in his oral evidence that he met with the branch office of the concern bank at Madanpur. The O.P. No 2 also stated in the W.V. that they have no liability as they were/are engaged in banking business and the premium was paid to the SBI General Insurance Co. through S/B account of the complainant. The O.P. No 1 clearly stated only in case of permanent disablement the Insurer shall be liable to pay compensation out of any accident. It revels from the policy document that only in case of permanent disablement the insurer shall be liable for payment of compensation according to the percentage of disablement which are specifically mentioned in the overleaf of the Insurance policy.

In this case the complainant did not produce any disablement certificate for the injury of his left eye and he is unable to prove that the vision of his left eye become lost and caused to permanent disablement.

In view of the discussions here in before we are of opinion that the complainant is unable to prove his case and on the other hand the O.Ps had/have no negligence or deficiency in service.

Accordingly the case of the complainant fails.   

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

that the complaint case being No. 75/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.1 & 2 without cost.  

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties of this case, free of cost.