This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan, the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department (for short “the Insurance Department”) and their functionaries, questioning the correctness of order dated 01.02.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 553/99.  By the impugned order, the State Commission, while reversing the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, “the District Forum”), has directed the Insurance Department to pay to the Complainant a sum of `2,00,000/- under the Group Insurance Scheme along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation letter i.e 10.03.1998 till realization.

2.      According to the Complainant her deceased husband working as a Jamadar in the office of an Executive Engineer PHED, Kota was a member of a Group Accident Insurance Scheme devised by the State Government for the welfare of the families of its employees in the event of his death due to accident.   The Scheme was managed by the Insurance Department.  A sum of `55/- per year used to be deducted from his salary by his employer as contribution to the said scheme. On 31.03.97, when the deceased went to answer the call of nature, he stumbled on a stone and received head injury.  He was taken to the nearby government dispensary, from where he was referred to a Senior Surgeon of RAPP Hospital.  Unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries.  On his death, the Complainant preferred claim for compensation under the Group Insurance Scheme, but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 10.03.1998, on the ground that the cause of death of the deceased was not an accident but high blood pressure, ‘a natural disease’.  

3.      Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the  Act before the District Forum, which upheld the decision of the Insurance Department.  Inter-alia, observing that the Complainant had failed to prove that the deceased had died in an accident, the District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Department.  The Complaint was thus dismissed.    

4.      Being dis-satisfied with the said order, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. As noted above, by the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant with the afore-noted directions.  For concluding that the death of the deceased was caused due to accident, the State Commission has observed as under :-

“        In the file, there is a certificate dated 12.06.1997 issued by the SHO, Police Station Rawatbhata, district Chittorgarh in which it has been clearly mentioned that on 31.03.1997 when the deceased was going to satisfy the nature’s call, he was hit by the stones as a result of which he had received head injury and thereafter, he had died in the hospital on 31.03.1997.

As per medical evidence available on record, deceased was having a severe head injury, swelling at left side and due to injury his blood was clotted.

In this case, Shri B.L. Agarwal was appointed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as Investigator to carry out the investigation of the case and after investigation of the case, the investigator has submitted has report on.09.12.1997 where he came to the following conclusions:-

“From the above enumerated Paras was conclude that late Shri Kashi Nath S/o Sh Lochan Ram had sustained severe head injury while going to latrine at Rawatbhatra at about 5.00 AM on 31.03.1997 and died at about 2.40 PM during hospitalization at PGR, Hospital, Kota.

We further conclude that the proximity cause of death is hitted with stone which developed haematoma, hyper tension, intra cerebral haemorrhage and deep coma due to which he died during hospitalization at PGR Hospital, Kota on 31.03.1997.

Therefore, the insurer may consider the claim for the death of late Sh. Kashi Nath S/o Sh. Lochan Ram as per the terms and conditions of the policy.”

5.      Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has placed strong reliance on a certificate dated 09.09.1997, issued by one “Group Chief Medicine”, wherein it is stated that the cause of death of the deceased was “severe hypertension, cardiovascular accident and intracerebral Hemorrhage.” It is pleaded that the said certificate, having been ignored by the State Commission the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6.         Having perused the documents on record, we are of the view that this Revision Petition is bereft of any merit. In the certificate dated 31.03.1997, issued by the Doctor Incharge of the government dispensary it is recorded that at the time of examination of the deceased, he had found haematoma on the left temporal region of the scalp; his blood pressure was 150/90 mm Hg. and pulse rate was 80 per minute. Except for certificate dated 09.09.1997, no other material was brought on record by the Petitioners to show that the deceased had a past history of hypertension or that he suffered brain haemorrhage because of very high blood pressure at the relevant time.  Even after the said episode which may cause rise in pulse rate, the blood pressure and pulse rate recorded by the Doctor at the dispensary was not life threatening. According to Black’s medical Dictionary, an average Systolic blood pressure around 1200 mm Hg. and Diastolic pressure of about 80 mm Hg. for a healthy adult is considered to be normal.  A pulse rate of around 70 per minute is usually taken as normal. Certificate dated 09.09.1997 is of no avail to the Petitioners as it was issued after a lapse of almost 6 months of the date of accident. It does not even indicate the clinical parameters of the deceased and the source of the particulars mentioned therein.  In light of the sequence of the documents, referred to above, we are not persuaded to hold that the decision of the State Commission suffers from any demonstrable perversity, in the sense that on the material placed before it, no reasonable person could have arrived at the same conclusion, warranting our interference under the revisionary jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with costs, quantified at `5,000/-. The amount as awarded by the State Commission along with the costs, shall be paid to the Complainant within four weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order.