Appeal No.1041/09


Ongar Singh r/o Quarter No.B.8/30,Police Line,Bhilwara Appellant


V.

1.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,Sardar Patel Marg,Jaipur

2.Care Consept Insurance Consultant & Marketing

Services Pvt.Ltd.,Ajmer Road,Jaipur. Respondents



Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri S.N.Soorwal,counsel for the appellant




Date of Judgement: 28.7.09



Heard at admission stage.


This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 17.6.09 passed by the District Forum,Bhilwara in complaint no.16/08,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents before the District Forum,Bhilwara interalia

2


stating that his brother,Shaitan Singh,now deceased had taken a Janta Personal Accident Police for the period 12.9.06 to 11.9.2010 through res.no.2 as the deceased was having the account with res.no.2 and the policy was issued on 12.9.06 and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, if the insured dies in an accident,his Lrs would be entitled to Rs.1 lac. It was further stated in the complaint that the deceased had died on 16.10.07 in the village Kundva because of snake bite. It was further stated in the complaint that since in the village there was no doctor and when they contacted the doctor of the hospital, but no doctor was available there,therefore,no postmortem was done,but news of the death of the deceased due to snake bite was published in the newspaper and thereafter a claim was preferred through res.no.2 and res.no.2 had sent the claim to res.no.1 insurance company and since no reply was given by the respondents,therefore,the complaint was filed claiming Rs.1 lac.


A reply was filed by res.no.1 insurance company and the case of res.no.1 was that since no postmortem of the deceased was got done and since there was no report of any doctor,therefore,the fact that the death of the deceased was an accidental one could not be found established in absence of above documents. It was further stated in the reply that the matter was investigated by the surveyor and who had given a report of the fact that the deceased was a patient of cancer and he had died because of the disease of cancer and not by snake bite,hence no claim complaint be dismissed.


Res.no.2 had not appeared before the District Forum.


The District Forum after hearing the parties,through the impugned order dated 17.6.06 had dismissed the complaint as stated above, interalia holding that in absence of postmortem

3




report or doctor certificate,the fact of snake bite could not be found established and the same could not be found established because there was news item in the press. It was further held that since no evidence of the fact that the death of the deceased was due to snake bite was not produced by the complainant appellant and further in the report of the Investigator,Shri Rajeev Bhargava it was stated that the death of the deceased was due to cancer,therefore,for reasons the complaint was dismissed.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.


In our considered opinion,the District Forum had given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the complainant appellant had failed to prove the fact that the death of the deceased was due to snake bite.


It may be stated here that in cases of snake bite,no doubt the postmortem report was not necessary but the doctor certificate supported by the certificate of the Panchayat was a must and that aspect was missing in this case and for want of them if the District forum had not found the death of the deceased by snake bite,it had not committed any mistake specially when the report of the investigator,Shri Bhargava was otherwise. Thus we are in agreement with the findings of the District Forum that the matter was published in the press would not be a sufficient proof to prove the fact that the death of the deceased was due to snake bite.


For reasons as stated above,we see no reason to differ with the findings of the District Forum as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any

4




basic infirmity,illegality of perversity and are liable to be confirmed one,hence no interference is called for and this appeal filed by the complainant appellant deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.




Member President