A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HYDERABAD.
FA 943/2007 against C.C. 728/2006, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
Smt. D. Renuka,
W/o. Late D. Ravinder
Age: 26 years,
C/o. M.U. Yugender
D.No. 18/692, Karimabad
Warangal. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
And
1) The Manager
Citi Bank N.A.
Lake Shore Tower
Rajbhavan Road
Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
2) M/s. Citi Bank
Citi Bank, N.A.
Credit Card Division
Global Consumer Bank
Insurance Operations
Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3) M/s. Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
46, Whites Road,
Chennai-600 014. *** Respondents/
Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. G. Ramakrishna
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. Katta Laxmi Prasad (R3)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) Appellant is the unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she is the wife of late Sri D. Ravinder. He was holding Citi Bank credit card wherein he was entitled to insurance coverage of Rs. 1 lakh in case of accidental death. He was working as Assistant Chemist with M/s. Matrix Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad. While so, he died in the accident that occurred in the factory on 5.3.2005. When she made the claim it was repudiated on the ground that the policy do not cover the accident. It was unjust and illegal and therefore she claimed Rs. 1 lakh together with interest and compensation.
3) R1 & R2, which had issued the credit card, while admitting the issuance of credit card, and coverage of insurance policy however alleged that exclusion under Clause No. 8 excludes the death of the deceased. He died while working in proximity to the inflammables and explosive chemicals. The policy does not cover the occupational hazards. Since he died during the course of his employment while working in chemical explosion in the factory the repudiation was just, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The insurance company filed counter reiterating its stance that the death of the deceased falls in the exclusion clause as enunciated under Clause No. 8 which excludes payment of amount. Since the peril is not covered as per the terms of the policy, the repudiation was just, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence, while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Legal Executive and filed Exs. B1 to B15.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the exclusion clause opined that the death of the assured was due to a reactor blast followed by fire and by virtue of Clause-8 which excludes payment in such situation dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It failed to consider Caluse-8 of Ex. B15 in correct perspective, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Dist. Forum?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant’s husband late D. Ravinder was holding Citi Bank Credit Card wherein the cardholder was entitled to insurance coverage to a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, if any time during the currency of the policy “the insured person shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external, violent and visible means, then the company shall pay to the insured person or nominee of the insured.” However, clause 8 of exclusions, exclude the death or injury occurred to the “persons whilst working in underground mines, explosives, magazines, workers whilst involved in electrical installation with high tension supply, Jockeys, Circus Personnel, Persons whilst engaged in racing on wheels or horseback, big game hunting, mountaineering, winter sports, skiing, ice hockey, ballooning, hang gliding, river rafting, polo and persons whilst engaged in occupation/activities of similar hazard.” (emphasis ours)
10) The card holder admittedly was working as Assistant Chemist in M/s. Matrix Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad. On 5.3.2005 at about 5.45 p.m. he died while he was working in the factory in a reactor blast followed by fire, evidenced under FIR Ex. B2, post-mortem report Ex. B3 and Inquest report Ex. B4. It is not in dispute that he died while engaged in occupation in a Chemical factory due to explosion of a reactor. The question is whether such peril covers the policy in question. At the cost of repetition we may state that the deceased died due to accidental blast of a reactor followed by fire while he was on duty. In the said circumstances it would undoubtedly attract exclusion clause No. 8, the same being occupational hazard. We do not see any infirmity in the interpretation of said clause by the Dist. Forum. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
11) In the result the appeal is dismissed, however, no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 26. 08. 2009.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
