(Delivered on 18/06/2018)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1.      The present appeal is filed  by original complainant against the order of the  District Forum, Chandrapur passed in  consumer complaint No. 181/2010 dated 18/04/2011 dismissing the complaint against the opposite party (O.P.) No. 1,2&3.

2.      The complainant herein  filed a complaint  for refusal of  claim of the insurance  by  O.P. No. 1 submitted through  O.P.No. 2 and O.P.No. 3 under  Government of Maharashtra  Agricultural  Accident  Janta Policy  instituted by the  Government  of Maharashtra  for the  farmers .

          She submitted that  her farmer husband was bitten  by  snake on 20/09/2008 and was  brought  to the  hospital from where was referred to  Medical College , Nagpur where he succumbed  to death  on 07/10/2008.  She  filed the claim  to the  District  Agricultural  Officer and then as per the directions of  O.P.No. 3 filed the remaining  papers  required to settle the claim successively on  04/11/2009.

          The complainant  submitted that  on 25/01/2010 she received a letter from O.P.No. 1 informing her  of  the closure  of the claim for want of  documents. However,  no explanation  was given  regarding  the documents.  She enquired with O.P.Nos. 1&2 but was not given  any information. Hence,  she gave a notice on 10/05/2010 when O.P.No. 3 informed her that  the documents submitted by her were sent to  O.P.No. 1&2.

          The complainant therefore,  filed a complaint alleging deficiency in  service  due to refusing  her claim and  requested  to declare to O.Ps. to have given  her  deficient service and  claimed  the  accidental insurance claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest  upon it at the rate of 18% p.a. from 07/10/2008 and  Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental harassment  and Rs. 5000/- as cost of the complaint.  She filed a complaint  through  her son Purushotam  Mandade.

3.      On notice the O.P.No. 1 appeared and denied the complaint submitting that  the complainant’s son is  not the authority  holder of the complainant. The O.P.No. 1 claimed that  as  the complainant did not  submit  the required documents as per  the insurance  policy  and  the government resolution  it was closed  on 25/01/2010. Also  the complainant  did not  make all legal heirs of the deceased   as party and  did not submit  the documents  as per the  government resolution.

          The O.P.No. 1 submitted that  her husband  was bitten  on  20/09/2008; however,  she filed the complaint  on 30/12/2010. Hence,  it is beyond the  period of limitation. Therefore, deserves dismissal. The cause of death  after 17 days  of her husband  is no where  recorded to be  due to  snake bite. Hence,  the claim was closed. After which  the complainant  sent a notice after four months and  filed the  delayed  complaint which deserves  dismissal.

          The O.P.No. 2 claimed that  the complainant  is not  their consumer  and is only  a consulting  organization giving its  services  free of  charge to  government of Maharashtra.  It  collects the papers from the  Agricultural Officer, verify them as per the  requirement of the  insurance company, gets  compliance done and submits them to insurance company. It also  gives the information of the action taken by the insurance company.  In the present case  it received  the claim of the death  on 04/01/2009 and submitted them  to O.P.No. 1 which  closed  the claim on 25/01/2010. Hence,  denied  any responsibility  with a request to  dismiss the complaint.

          The O.P.No. 3 denied the  allegations made in the complaint. However, submitted that  the documents  were furnished  by  the complainant  as were requested  by their  senior office  demanded  by   the  O.P.Nos. 1&2. It submitted that  it gave the requirement  list of the documents  on 28/10/2009 to complainant of which  the  complainant  complied  all documents  on 04/11/2009 except  the Post Mortem Report, which  were submitted  to  its  superior  office on 24/01/2009. The O.P.No. 3 denied relationship  of consumer  and   insurance service and therefore, requested  to  dismiss the complaint.

4.      The learned Forum heard the parties and perusing the evidence held that  the  complainant did not submit  the required documents. Hence,  the O.P.No. 1 closed  the claim.  There is no document to show  as to the exact cause of death of  the deceased.  Hence,  the claim  deserves  refusal  for want of  required documents.  The learned Forum held that the action therefore of O.P.No. 1 does not  indicate  deficiency in service.

          The learned Forum  further  held that  as per the  request letter of O.P.No. 3, the complainant submitted all documents. However, did not  submit the post mortem examination report. As per the government resolution  dated 06/09/2008 specific documents are denoted  to settle the claim, in which it is a requirement  to submit the  first information  report or the report of police  patil, spot panchanama, Inquest panchanama, post mortem examination report , chemical analyzer report and  cause of death  certificate issued by the Government  Medical Officer. In the present case after the  alleged snake bite,  an information  was given to Police Station, &  the deceased was referred  for further  treatment to  Medical College. There is  death certificate  given by the Medical College. However, as  death had taken place  after 17 days  it was necessary  to conduct the post mortem examination.

          The relatives of the deceased person made request  for no post mortem examination. Hence, it was not  performed. It was incumbent upon the  complainant to submit the post mortem  examination report. But    it was not submitted   along with  Inquest panchnama . Hence,  the demand  of O.P.No. 1 was correct. There cannot be a reason to call it deficiency in service.  The learned Forum overruled the contention of the O.P. No. 1 that the complaint  deserves to be dismissed  for delay. The learned Forum thus passed the order supra.

5.      Aggrieved against the order, the complainant filed the appeal through Advocate Shri Linge &  hence is referred as appellant. The original O.P.  No. 1 is  referred as respondent No.1 who appeared through  advocate Shri  Godbole. The O.P.No. 3 referred as respondent No. 3 and filed their say.  The original O.P.No. 2 did not appear.

6.      Advocate Shri Joshi  appeared on behalf of Adv.Shri Linge for  appellant  and submitted that the respondent No. 1 did not specify  the exact document  required by it when  the appellant had  submitted all the relevant documents as per the  letter of  respondent No. 3. He relied on the following judgments.

i.        National Commission Judgment  passed in  revision petition No. 828/2010 dated 09/01/2015 wherein  the Hon’ble  National Commission referring to  the judgment  passed in Dharmisetty Shrinivas  Rao  Vs.  New India Assurance Co.Ltd. {I(2006) CPJ 11 (NC)] held that  post mortem examination  was not conducted on the dead body because usually  in snake  bite cases  post mortem  is not  conducted. Further there is a certificate on record issued by the doctor  for snake bite and the  death of the patient.  The learned Forum thus  accepted the complaint  allowed the claim and setting aside the  order of the  State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum in case of snake bite with no post mortem  examination report.

ii.       The Maharashtra State Commission  in an order passed in appeal No. 634/2008 between  Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. Shahjahan B.  Bashir Bagwan held that some time a poison is not detected in viscera in case of snake bite. It does not mean that  the death is not by snake bite and hence, dismissed the appeal.

7.      The advocate for the respondent No. 1 reiterated the same grounds claiming that the complaint deserves dismissal as was filed after two years in view of  judgment in the case of  Kandimala.  He further  submitted  the  Government G.R. issued on 24/08/2007 specified  the directions of the government  under  annexure- D regarding submission of documents  in the case of  snake  bite.

          The advocate for the respondent No. 1 submitted that  as per the  directions a report of police  patil, spot panchanama  and  post  mortem  examination report  are required  to define  the cause of death by snake bite.  He  further submitted that as the required post mortem  examination report was not submitted, the respondent  rightly  closed the claim. Hence,  the  appropriate order of dismissal passed by the  learned Forum deserves confirmation. The advocate for the  respondent No. 1 relied on the following judgment.

i.        Supreme Court Judgment passed in  Kandimala Raghvaiyya Vs.  National Insurance Co.  reported at  (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases  768. Wherein  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court held that  it is the mandatory  duty of the Fora to dismiss the complaint  which are  barred by limitation where no  sufficient  cause   is shown. Hence,  the complaint stand dismissal  as not filed  within two years  from the cause of action  as per section 24-A of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986.

8.      The representative of the O.P.No. 3 submitted  that  it  received  the claim  which was submitted  to Tahsildar on 18/12/2008 of the death  which took place  on 07/10/2008 which  was submitted  to the  District Agricultural Officer on 31/12/2008.

9.      We considered the contentions of both parties. We find that the deceased husband of the appellant was brought to the hospital for the treatment of snake bite on 20.09.2008.  He also gave a statement before the Executive Magistrate that he was bitten by the snake and there was no one at that time as a witness.  We further find that he continued under treatment for 17 days in different hospitals and died on 07.10.2008 in the Government Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur.  The certificate of death gives the cause of death as  renal failure, but makes a mention of the history of snake bite.

10.    We further find that the postmortem was not performed on the dead body of the deceased husband as was  informed that the relatives requested so. However, we find that the postmortem is a requirement, which is to be got done by the Medical Officer who treated the person or the Police Officer, who got the information, to know the exact cause of death. If the cause of death is known then the postmortem is not required to be done. In these fact & circumstances request or no request of the relatives becomes immaterial.  It is the duty of public servant attending to the death to take a decision.

11.    The doctor has given a medical certificate mentioning the cause of death as above. But it clearly shows that the deceased husband of the appellant was brought to the hospital for snake bite for which he was given regular treatment. The respondents have not brought any evidence on record to show that the deceased husband of the appellant was suffering  with any disease prior to the incident of snake bite or  from any ailment, which could have resulted in a de-hydration and renal failure as referred by the serving Medical Officer.

12.    It clearly shows that the deceased husband was brought to the hospital for snake bite and continued under the treatment till his death.  It shows that though he may have died with different complications or there may not have been a postmortem report performed upon his dead body, still it clearly shows that his entry in the hospital was for the snake bide and all his ailments and complications resulted into death, were triggered by the snake bide.

13.    In observation of the circumstances as above, we can safely conclud that the appellant had filed all the documents, which she had to claim the insurance for the accidental death of her husband. Her husband had died with the ailments, which were triggered by the snake bite. Hence, it needs to be safely concluded that he died because of snake bite. The complications can be said to have developed because of snake bite in the absence of any evidence  in rebuttal.  Hence, his death needs to be safely accepted to be an accidental death due to snake bite. The requirement of postmortem report cannot cripple the claim of the appellant to get benefit of insurance in the requirements discussed above.  Hence, the wife of deceased husband deserves to get the insurance claim because of accidental death.

14.    We find that the learned Forum has erroneously  concluded that the postmortem is must. But it does not so. It being the responsibility of the public servant to get it done to know the cause of death, the request of relatives has no meaning in the investigation of the death.

15.    We, therefore, find that the appellant deserves to get the claim of insurance because of the accidental death of her husband by a snake bite.  Hence, we pass the order as below.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is allowed.

ii.       The impugned order is set aside.

iii.      The opposite party No.1 to provide the claim of Rs.1.00 Lac of  insurance to the appellant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 30/12/2010 till final payment.

iv.      The respondent also to provide the cost of complaint of Rs.5,000/- and compensation of  Rs.5,000/- for physical & mental agony to the appellant.

v.       The above order be complied in the span of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

vi.      Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.