BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member
And
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Monday, the 30th day of May, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 76/2005
Between:
Smt. K. Shoba, W/o late Narayana,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Household,
R/o H.No.1-1-152, R.E.C. II Gate,
Prasanth Nagar, Kazipet,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. Andhra Bank,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Branch Nakkalagutta,
Warangal.
2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office IV,
2nd floor, Posnett Bhavan,
P.B.NO.144, Church Building,
Tilak Road, Hyderabad – 506 001.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. T. Sridhar, Advocate
Opposite Party No.1 : Not appeared.
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri A. Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate.
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite Parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- @ interest 18% and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The deceased is the husband of the complainant working as Asst.Engineer (Housing) in A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Warangal succumbed to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 3-5-2004 at about 1.50 p.m. at NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. The autopsy was conducted by Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad and issued Post Mortem Report which clearly speak the cause of death of the deceased was only due to Head Injury. Prior to the death of the deceased he held Abhaya gold Savings Bank account with Opposite party No.1 vide Abhaya Gold A/c.No.104324 under Abhaya Gold Savings Bank scheme account holder is provided with an Accident Insurance Cover under group personal accident insurance policy and that the account holder has to maintain minimum balance of Rs.1,000/-and the policy is covered under this policy by paying prescribed insurance charges i.e, Rs.50/- per account holder and the risk covered for death is Rs.1,00,000/-. That the opposite party NO.1 has deducted and paid the insurance charges and the policy was subsisting. After the death of the deceased the complainant made claim No.0062/04 and in due transaction opposite party NO.2 has addressed through Registered post Ack due to show the cause not to entertain the claim of the complainant showed the reasons that the deceased fell in open drainage and sustained head injury and died subsequently as he was in drunken condition as per the statement of his son Sri K. Anil Kumar. Hereafter she issued legal notice then she field this case before this forum.
Opposite party No.2 filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
It is true that the deceased was opened Abhaya Gold Savings Bank Account with opposite party No.1 and nominated his wife the complainant as his nominee. The opposite party No.2 got the matter investigated through its investigator and it revealed that the deceased was in a drunken condition and fallen in a open drainage and sustained head injury and died subsequently. As such opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.
The complainant in support of her claim, filed her Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of opposite party No.2 Sri M.Krishan Kota filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 to B-5.
Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- @ interest 18% p.a. and Rs.10,000/- towards damages and with costs.
The counsel for complainant argued that the deceased not died due to alcoholic intoxication, he died only due to head injury after he met with an accident. But the counsel for opposite party No.2 argued that the deceased died after taking alcohol intoxication then he drove the vehicle met with an accident. So when he drove with intoxication in motor vehicle accident the insurance is not liable to pay the policy amount.
After arguments of both side counsels our reasons are like this:
On the basis of evidence placed before this Forum i.e, evidence of complainant as well as opposite parties we come to the conclusion that the insurance is liable to pay the policy amount to the complainant. Because in this case it is true as per Ex.B-4 Discharge card of Nizam Institute of medical sciences, Hyderabad at page No.5 it shows that the deceased consumed alcoholic intoxication and as per the arguments of opposite parties since the deceased consumed alcohol, he died. For that the Insurance is not liable to pay compensation. For this our answer is that as per Ex.A-6 – Post Mortem Examination Report the cause of death of the deceased is only due to Head Injury. In page No.4 of Ex.A-6 clearly mentioned that the deceased died due to head injury. The post mortem report is final because the doctor has to certify with regard to the death of the deceased in post mortem only. So in this case no doubt the son of the deceased stated before the Police that his father died after taking alcohol, he drove the vehicle and fell into open drainage. But the same was not in Post Mortem Report. The post mortem report shows that the deceased died due to Head Injury. So we are taking the post mortem report as an authenticated document and we accept and believe the same and we come to the conclusion that the deceased died only due to Head Injury. And further the counsel for complainant cited a citation
2005 (3) CPR 24 in
Rajasthan State Insurance P.F.Dept. … Appellant
Vs
Smt.Basanti Devi & Ors. …Respondents
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 17 – held Prescription slip recorded “smell of alcohol” but post mortem report did not show any sign of alcohol –State had charge sheeted bus driver for rash and negligent driving and there was no nexus between alleged breach of condition of policy and accident – Impugned order suffered no illegality.
The above cited judgment is applicable to the case of the complainant because in the present case also it is true as per Ex.B-4 Nizam Institute of medical Sciences the doctors stated that the deceased died due to alcoholic intoxiation but in Post Mortem Examination report i.e., Ex.A-6 the doctors stated that the deceased died due to Head Injury. So there are difference in between Ex.B-4 and A-6. And further this Forum has taken Ex.A-6 Post Mortem Examination report is an authenticated document and come to the
Conclusion that the deceased died only due to Head injury. But not alcohol intoxiation. And we reject the contention of Surveyors report and We accept the Ex.A-6 Post Mortem Examination Report.
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we come to the conclusion that the insurance company is liable to pay the policy amount.
Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of complainant against the Opposite parties.
Point No.2 To what relief:- The first point is decided in favour of complainant against opposite parties, this point also decided in favour of complainant against opposite parties.
In the result the complaint is allowed and we direct the Opposite party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) to the complainant along with interest 7.5% pa. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of deposit. And we award an amount of Rs.500/- (Rs.Five hundred only) towards costs and we reject to award for compensation and damages.
A month’s time is granted to Opposite parties for the compliance of the order.
The claim against Opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 30th May, 2008).
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party
Affidavit of complainant filed Affidavit of O.P.2 filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 Abhaya Gold Savings Pass Book issued by Opposite party No.1.
- Ex.A-2 Letter by Opposite party No.2 to Opposite party No.1,dt.16-04-05.
- Ex.A-3 Certified copy of F.I.R. of P.S.Subedari, Warangal District.
- Ex.A-4 Certified copy of F.I.R. of P.S.Panjagutta, Hyderabad.
- Ex.A-5 Letter of Inspector of Police, P.S.Panjagutta, Hyderabad to S.H.O P.S.Subedari,Hanamkonda, dtd:04-05-2004.
- Ex.A-6 Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination.
On behalf of Opposite party.
1. Ex. B-1 Abhaya Gold Savings Bank Group Policy.
2. Ex.B-2 Letter by Phatom Detective Agency Pvt.Ltd., to OP.2.
3. Ex.b-3 Confidential Report of Phatom Detective Agency Pvt. Ltd., dtd:18-01-2005.
4. Ex.b-4 certified copy of discharge record, admission form & admission record of Nims, Hyderabad.
5. Order in M.V. OP. No.1021/2004
Sd/-
President
