KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.163/2021

JUDGEMENT DATED : 10.12.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.386/2014 on the file of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar and Adv. T. Saji)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. Cletus Thottappilly)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the opposite party and the respondents are the complainants in C.C.No.386/2014 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short ‘the District Commission’).

2.       The husband of the 1^st complainant, who is also the father of the complainants 2 to 4 and the son of the 5^th complainant, died on 23.08.2012 due to drowning.  The deceased Rejukuttan was having insurance coverage at the time of his death.  The accidental death was also covered by the policy.  The postmortem certificate would show that the death occurred due to drowning.  The claim was submitted by the complainants before the opposite party in connection with the death of the deceased Rejukuttan.  The said claim was not granted by the opposite party stating that since the chemical analysis report of the viscera samples was not produced by the complainants, the opposite party was not in a position to allow the claim.  In the said circumstances, the complainants filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3.       The opposite party filed version admitting the coverage of the policy on the date of death of the husband of the 1^st complainant.  However, they contended that since the postmortem report had revealed that viscera samples had been sent for forensic examination, the complainants had to produce the forensic certificate relating to the viscera samples for disbursing the claim.  However, since the complainant did not produce the certificate relating to the examination of viscera samples, the opposite party was not in a position to disburse the claim amount.  It is contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in this regard.

4.       Before the District Commission, the complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked for the complainant.  The opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exhibits R1 and R2 were marked for the opposite party.

5.       After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) along with interest @18% per annum as compensation.  The District Commission also directed the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as costs.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

6.       Heard.  Perused the records.

7.       It is admitted by the opposite party that the deceased Rejukuttan had policy coverage on the date of death.  The postmortem certificate would show that the death was due to drowning.  It is stated in Exhibit R2 letter issued by the opposite party that since the viscera samples were sent for chemical analysis, the complainants had to produce the report of the chemical examination for disbursing the claim amount. 

8.  It is clear from Exhibit P3 postmortem certificate that the viscera samples were not sent for chemical analysis, but were only preserved for chemical examination.  It further appears from Exhibit P3 that the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination, did not express any doubt that the cause of death of Rejukuttan was drowning.  It is clearly stated in Exhibit P3 that the postmortem findings were consistent with death due to Asphyxia from drowning.  Though the samples of viscera were preserved for chemical examination as is evident from Exhibit P3 postmortem certificate, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the samples of viscera were sent for forensic examination.

9.       The opposite party did not have a contention that the death was due to any other reason.  There is absolutely no material before the Commission to indicate that the death of Rejukuttan was not caused due to drowning.   It is also pertinent to note that Exhibit R2 is dated 02.04.2015 whereas the postmortem certificate is dated 23.08.2012.  The insurance company should have conducted an enquiry if they had any doubt with regard to the cause of death, before issuing Exhibit R2 certificate.

10.     Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that the death of Rejukuttan was due to drowning as had been clearly stated in Exhibit P3 postmortem certificate.  In the said circumstances, we concur with the finding of the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in this regard.  The District Commission had only awarded the claim amount as compensation along with interest and costs of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only), which cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh, warranting interference by this Commission.  In the said circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned.

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed with an additional litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only).

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the respondents, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement. 

SL