This appeal relates to final order dated 04.06.2019 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri in CC No. 38 of 2016. The fact of the case in nutshell is that one since deceased Santosh Singh an in habitant of Siliguri aged 23 years on 02.10.2014 in the deep night slipped from the steps of his house and fell to the ground sustaining grievous head injury. He was taken to the Siliguri S.D Hospital where he was declared brought dead and U.D Case was registered due to un natural death of Santosh Singh and an Autopsy was held over the dead body by an Autopsy Surgeon and the unnatural death case was investigated by an Assistant Sub Inspector of Siliguri P.S who submitted the final report of investigation under Section 174 of C.r.P.C. The deceased Santosh Singh had a valid accidental Insurance Policy Bearing No. 313205/48/2015/585 which was valid from 25.07.2014 to 24.07.2015. For such accidental death the appellant Ramananda Singh as father of the deceased raised claim of Insurance before the Insurance Agency by intimation of death on 10.10.2014 by filing the death certificate and Police Report. The claim was repudiated on the part of Insurance Company on the ground that the inquest report of Police Authority specified the cause of death Santosh Singh a natural one and for that reason the personal accidental policy did not cover such type of natural death. Thereafter, the appellant R. Singh registered a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Forum which was duly contested by the Insurance Company by submitting the Written Version. Thereafter, the Ld. Forum recorded the evidences and after hearing the arguments came into conclusion that the death of Santosh Singh was held as natural one and for that reason the personal accidental policy did not come into play and for that reason the Instant Consumer Complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the order this appeal follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from defective observation without apply of any judicial mind and that order should be set aside and the Instant Consumer Complaint should be sustained. The appeal was registered in due time, notice of appeal was sent to the respondent Insurance Company who has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate Mr. B. Maitra. The appellant has been represented in this case through Ld. Advocate Mr. J. Ganguly. Argument of both sides were heard.

Decision with reasons

The fact remains that Santosh Singh the deceased was an young man who has left the world only at the age of 23 years. It is also not denied   that he has got a personal accidental policy and at the time of his death the policy was well in force. After the death the heirs of the deceased raised the claim for getting the Insurance benefits but the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim on the basis of the report of the ASI who has opined the death of deceased Santosh Singh was very natural one. Now the question is the remark of an ASI who has just investigated the U.D. Case can form any opinion about the cause of death of the deceased. Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company during the course of argument contended that Insurance Company had to rely upon the report of ASI as because the ASI had conducted the inquiry and examining the witnesses and the inquest report clearly speaks that the deceased was habitual drunker and he consumed liquor every night and his dead body was found lying on the bed which was detected in the early morning and none witnessed the incident whether the deceased had slipped in the steps and in this fashion he received the head injury. So, for want of material evidence, Ld. Forum was bound to hold that the death of Santosh Singh was natural one and for that reason the personal accidental policy does not come to help the heirs of the deceased. In getting Insurance benefits. Ld. Advocate of the appellant countered this argument to the score that in PM report, the Autopsy Surgeon categorically established the fact that Santosh Singh received various injuries including the head injury and such injuries was Anti Mortem in nature and in the context of the doctors opinion in PM report the ASI has no authority to pass any remark that death of Santosh Singh was natural one. After going through the inquest report very carefully and after perusing the observations of Autopsy Surgeon in PM report it has become crystal clear that deceased Santosh Singh has received Anti Mortem head injuries including Hematoma in his head which resulted the death of Santosh Singh. Fact remains that nobody remained the Eye Witness in this case to see the actual event by which Santosh Singh received the head injury. The report of ASI which is the basis of repudiation of claim on the part of Insurance Company clearly speaks (Annexure – D) and has established beyond any doubt that during inquiry no foul play could be detected. Here, foul play means there was no evidence that coercive or forceful measure was taken behind the cause of death of the deceased. The Autopsy Surgeon stated that death was due to the affect of Anti Mortem injuries. The surgeon did not mention whether the injuries was homicidal, suicidal or accidental. There was no FIR or any allegation that the deceased was murdered by anybody or he was abetted for committing suicide. No strangulation mark or any other injuries was detected in his bodies. The marks of injuries arise in a suicidal case were also not detected in the body of the deceased. The back portion of the head of the deceased received serious injuries with high impact causing Hematoma which indicates that he fell down on any hard surface and for that reason his head was smashed with any hard surface and it might be he was drunken at the point of time. There is no viscera report or any forensic report in this respect to prove that he consumed alcohol which caused his death or any poisonous substance could be found from the viscera. So, in a natural way we may consider it a fit case of accidental death. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased should be compensated through the Insurance Policy for the untimely death of an youth. The Claimant/Appellant is an unfortunate father who has lost his son in a very young age. The Insurance Company also had no apparent fault as because they had to rely upon the report of ASI under Section 174 C.r.P.C but as a prudent man the status of the whole case and the incident in related to this case clearly speaks that deceased Santosh Singh has lost his life due to head injuries sustained by him accidentally and as there was an accidental policy on the life of the deceased the Claimant should not be deprived from getting the Insurance benefits. The Insurance policy mentions that the sum assured in this case was 3 Lakh and due to accidental death 80% of the assured sum to be provided as Insurance benefit. In fact the Insurance Company had no fault in this case as they have inquired the matter through Police investigation and entrusted and relied upon the Police report and for that reason Insurance Company had no latches at the time of repudiation of claim. Considering all these aspects, the Commission finds that the decision of the Ld. Forum suffers from some defects and for that reason the impugned order should be set aside as because the Consumer Protection Act should be construed in a liberal manner for the sake of interest of a bonafide Consumers and here in this case there is no doubt that Insurance Company and the insured had a relation of Consumer and service givers. So, the Appellant/Complainant should be compensated in a rightful manner.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. The final order delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri dated 04.06.2019 in CC No. 38/S/2016 is hereby set aside. The Consumer Complaint filed by R. Singh Bearing No. 38/S/2016 is hereby allowed in appellate stage. The respondent Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. is hereby asked to pay 80% of the sum assured in the policy that is RS. 2 Lakh 40 thousand and RS. 10 thousand as litigation cost including compensation total RS. 2.5 Lakh within two months from the date of order, failing which interest at the rate of 7% Per-annum shall be imposed upon the awarded money.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost and copy of the order to be sent to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri for information and taking necessary action.