DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.176/23.10.2008 Decided on : 20.03.2009 Smt.Surjit Kaur Wd/o Sh.Chuhar Singh, S/o Sh.Natha Singh, Ward No.11, Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Park Road, Mansa through its Manager. 2.The C.A.S.S. Limited, Cheema through its Secretary. 3.The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Cheema through its Manager. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.J.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.N.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1. Sh.R.K.Mishra, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Smt.Surjit Kaur widow of Sh.Chuhar Singh, a resident of Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act') against the New India Assurance Company Limited, The C.A.S.S. Limited, Cheema through its Secretary (hereinafter called the Contd........2 : 2 : 'Society') and The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Cheema through its Manager (hereinafter called the 'bank'), for release of amount, payable under the insurance policy and payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and costs of filing of the complaint. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant may be described as under:- 2. That Sh.Chuhar Singh son of Sh.Natha Singh, husband of the complainant, had been maintaining Account No.2202/402 with the OP No.3 bank. He was the member of OP No.2 Society. The OP No.3 had deducted the amount on account of premium, from the account maintained by the husband of the complaint, who died on 19.5.2008, by inhaling insecticide, being sprayed by him, in his land. The complainant conveyed the intimation, about the death of her husband, to the OP No.1 and completed the requisite formalities, for the release of the amount, under the composite insurance policy, secured by the account holder of OP No.3 bank from OP No.1, who has repudiated her claim vide letter dated 4.9.2008, on the ground, that the insured had died a natural death, as such, the claim does not fall within the scope of accidental death. The complainant, being widow of deceased insured, is consumer under the opposite parties and there is deficiency in service on their part. The complainant, has also been subjected ,to mental and physical harassment due to repudiation of the claim under the insurance policy and has incurred unavoidable expenses for filing of the complaint, due to illegal repudiation of her claim by OP No.1. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite party No.1 filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable, because insurance policy issued by the answering opposite party, covers accidental death, whereas husband of the complainant, has died natural death, as evident from report of post mortem and joint statement, made to the police by the co-villagers of the deceased and that of his son Harvinder Singh; that complainant has no locus standi Contd........3 : 3 : and cause of action, to file the complaint. On merits, the factum of issuance of policy, is not specifically denied and averments made in the preliminary objections, regarding cause of death of the deceased husband of the complainant, have been reiterated. It is denied, that he died accidental death, by inhaling insecticide, while spraying the same in his land. It is also submitted, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party, as claim of the complainant, has been repudiated, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which does not cover natural death. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. The Opposite Party No.2 filed separate written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and the answering opposite party has been dragged into litigation unnecessarily, as no cause of action, has accrued in his favour to file the complaint. On merits, it is not disputed that deceased husband of the complainant was their member. It is submitted that claim filed by the complainant, has been forwarded by OP No.3 bank to OP No.1 Society. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 5. The Opposite Party No.3, in his written version, has admitted that deceased husband of the complainant, has been maintaining an account with him and it is submitted that claim papers submitted by the complainant, have been forwarded, to OP No.1, for further action, as such, the answering opposite party, has no role to play, so far as payment of insurance claim, by OP No.1, as per terms and conditions of the composite insurance policy, is concerned. 6. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered her affidavit and copies of Contd........4 : 4 : documents Ext.C-1 and C-8 before her counsel closed evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence copies of documents Ext.OP-6 to OP-11 before he closed the evidence whereas learned counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 furnished affidavit of Sh.Charanjit Singh, Secretary and Sh.Baldev Singh, Branch Manager and copies of documents Ext.OP1 to OP-5 and closed evidence. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the complainant alone. 8. As per the admitted facts, the husband of the complainant had been maintaining a bank account with OP No.3 bank , as member of OP No.2 Society. It is also not disputed that OP No.3 bank, has secured composite insurance policy, for account holders and members of OP No.2 Society and deceased husband of the complainant, was also member thereof and had been maintaining bank account with the OP No.3, which fact is otherwise evident from the copy of the pass book Ext.C-7, produced on record by the complainant. As per copy of death certificate Ext.C-3, her husband Chuhar Singh expired on 19.5.2008 and as per copy of letter dated 4.9.2008 claim lodged by her for payment of amount under the policy, has been repudiated by OP No.1, on the ground, that as per contents of the F.I.R. and post mortem report, Chuhar Singh died a natural death, which is not covered under the policy. The complainant, has tendered in evidence copies of post mortem report and report of the Chemical Examiner Ext.C-8 and C-6 respectively. The OP No.3, has also produced on record, copies of DDR No.7 registered on 19.5.2008 Ext.OP-6 and of Inquest Report Ext.OP-7. In the copy of the DDR and statement of the son of the deceased and joint statement of his co-villagers Ext.OP-7 and OP-9, it is stated that deceased husband of the complainant, had been a chronic patient of asthma and had been getting treatment from Amar Hospital at Patiala and he was found lying dead by his son in the morning of 19.5.2008 when he went to Contd........5 : 5 : supply him tea. As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, Ext.OP-5, each account holder of the OP No.3 bank and member of OP No.2 Society, has been insured for a sum of Rs.1 lac, in case his death takes place, by accident. OP No.3, has deposited the premium in lump sum in the sum of Rs.5184200/-, after deduction from the account of the account holders and members of the OP No.2 Society. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant Sh. J.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, has submitted that from the above said facts, it is evident that death of the husband of the complainant, was accidental, as such, the OP No.1 was not justified in repudiating the claim lodged by the complainant, who is widow of the insured. Learned counsel has further argued that no reliance can be placed on the joint statement of the son of the complainant because contents thereof were not corroborated by any evidence and no evidence to the contrary, has been adduced on record by OP No.1, on the basis of which its plea may be accepted, that husband of the complainant died natural death. Learned counsel further argued that due to repudiation of the claim by OP No.1, in an arbitrary manner, relying upon the material which was not worthy of evidence, complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment, as such, she is entitled to seek compensation and costs of filing of the instant complaint from OP No.1. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1, Sh. N.K.Sharma, Advocate, has submitted that as per the statement of the son of the complainant and joint statement of her co-villagers, her husband has met natural death, being chronic patient of asthma and, as mentioned in the copy of the F.I.R., no person, has witnesses the death of her husband, as such, on the basis of the report of the Chemical Examiner alone, it cannot be held, that deceased has met accidental death. Learned counsel argued that claim lodged by the complainant, has been rightly repudiated by OP No.1 because natural death is not covered under the composite insurance policy secured by them for its account holder and members of the OP No.1 Contd........6 : 6 : Society. 11. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. In the copy of post mortem report Ext.C-8 cause of death of her husband has been left open, subject to report of the chemical examiner, but as per chemical examiner report Ext.C-6 Aluminium Phosphide insecticide and Ethyl Alcohol were detected in the viscera of the deceased, sent for test by the police. It is also reported that Blood Alcohol concentration is estimated to be 115.0 mg per 100 ml.. These remarks given by the Chemical Examiner lead to the inference that deceased had consumed heavy doze of liquor and poisonous insecticide before his death. As such, his death cannot be said to be natural from any stretch of imagination, so as to deny relief to the complainant under the insurance policy issued by OP No.1 covering risk to his life. Therefore, the plea of the OP No.1 cannot be accepted that he died natural death. Rather it corroborate the plea of the complainant that her husband inhaled poisonous insecticide while spraying it in his land. 12. The opposite parties have also not tendered affidavit of any person, who may have better means of knowledge, about cause of death of the husband of the complainant. The contents of the joint statement of the co-villagers and statement of her son Harvinder Singh, are also not corroborated by any evidence. As such, case has to be adjudicated by us by balancing probabilities of other evidence, adduced on record by the parties. In the absence of any direct evidence. the cause of death in the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext.C-6 cannot be ignored by us. 13. Since the version of the opposite parties, that the insured had died natural death, is not proved, therefore, in the light of the material placed on record, we have no option but to accept the plea of the complainant, that her husband met with accidental death, due to inhaling of insecticide, although he might be under the influence of liquor. As such, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the Contd........7 : 7 : part of the opposite parties, because of which they cannot escape liability. Even the consumption of liquor by the deceased will not absolve them of their liability. In this regard reference may be made to 1996 (1) CPJ 224 Smt.S.B.Girijamba versus Senior Divisional Manager, wherein suspicion, has arisen by the post mortem report, that deceased has consumed some alcohol. It was held by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Commission, that rejection of claim lodged for award of accident benefit under the policy, by the Insurance Company, on the ground that deceased had consumed some liquor, is not justified, in the absence of any evidence, to establish the same. 14. At this stage, Learned counsel for Ops No.2 and 3 Sh. R.K.Mishra, Advocate, has argued that his clients have no concern with the insurance policy issued by OP No.1 and they have forwarded the claim lodged by the complainant to OP No.1, as such, they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant on account of compensation or costs. 15. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 is not devoid of merit, because the insurance claim lodged by the complainant, on account of death of her husband, was to be honoured by the insurance company and not by them. They cannot be said to be deficient in service, because of repudiation of the claim by OP No.1, irrespective of the merits thereof, and no liability can be fastened upon them, on that score and they cannot be burdened, to pay compensation for mental and physical harassment suffered, if any, by the complainant or amount incurred by her on account of filing of the complaint. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint against Ops No.2 and 3 and accept it against OP No.1. OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac to the complainant against the insurance cover secured by her deceased husband Chuhar Singh S/o Sh.Natha Singh, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which she would be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9 percent Contd........8 : 8 : from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs. Although, deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 is duly established, but we are not inclined to award compensation for physical and mental harassment and costs incurred by the complainant, for filing of the instant complaint, because of distinct nature of the controversy involved in the complaint, which needed adjudication by the Forum. 17. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 20.03.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
