District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur

Surya Sen Sarani Municipal Building, 1^st Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101.

Telefax: 03522-270013

Consumer Complaint No.: 31/2007

Order No.17

Dt. 28.11.2008

Present (1) Sri S. K. Ghosh - Presiding Member

(2) Samiksha Bhattacharya - Lady Member

Counsel(s) (1) Sri Anjan Kumar Chakraborty - Advocate for the complainant

(2) Sri Goutam Das - Advocate for the OP.

This is to consider an application U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the complainant claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- + interest as well as cost against OP NIC.

Facts of the case, in brief, is that the deceased Gobinda Das has purchased a Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy from the Opposite Parties on 23.06.2001 for Rs.1,00,000/- which will be expired on 22.06.2016 vide Policy No.100300472K9601062 and the complainant is the nominee of the said policy and as such after the death of Gobinda Das the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(d)(1) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Deceased Gobinda Das was a worker of Anapurna Rice Mill of village –Tetultala PO: Naroi, PS: Gangarampur within the district of Dakshin Dinajpur. While he was working in the said mill on 30.11.2003, he became injured. Thereafter he was transferred to Gangarampur Public Health Centre where he declared dead. The complainant made several application to the OPs for getting death benefit of her deceased husband as a nominee under the said policy and OP No.1 sent a letter to OP No.2 for inquiry on 10.05.2006 with a copy to the complainant and thereafter the OP No.2 appointed Sri Ajay Chatterjee for investigation. The OPs did not pay any compensation to the complainant till now. The complainant is entitled to get compensation as a nominee under the said policy and there is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP NIC. Hence the application.

The OP NIC contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia that the OP NIC is not liable to pay any compensation whatsoever as the complainant violated the policy condition. From the final report of police, it is also found that the deceased Gobinda Das was feeling ill on that time and he has fallen on the belt of the machine i.e. to say the illness of the deceased prior to that alleged accident is the main reason of the said accident. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP NIC.

In view of the aforesaid contentions of the both parties following points arose for consideration :-

1. Whether the consumer-complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or gross negligence on the part of OPs?

Decision with reasons:

Point Nos. 1 & 2:

Both parties file relevant documents at the time of hearing which are kept with the record such as death certificate,

Claim Form, Policy Certificate, Final Police Report, Post Mortem Report etc.

We heard contentions of Ld. Counsels for both parties and perused all material documents produced

before us with reference to relevant provisions of law.

At first Ld. Forum perused the policy certificate in the name of Gobinda Das (since deceased) vide Policy

No.100300472K9601062 covering the period from 23.06.2001 to 22.06.2016 containing the sum

insured amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. It appears from the said certificate that the complainant viz.

Aloka Das wife of Gobinda Das, since deceased, is a recorded nominee under the said policy mentioned

above.

Thereafter the Ld. Forum also perused the final report submitted by police personnel dated 05.07.2004

and also perused the post mortem report submitted by Sudip Kumar Das, Assistant Surgeon, Balurghat,

District Hospital.

From the abovementioned report/statement it is admitted fact that Gobinda Das since deceased was a

worker engaged in Annapurna Rice Mill of village Tetultala, PO:Naroi, under PS: Gangarampur within the

jurisdiction of Dakshin Dinajpur and while he was working in the said Mill an accident was occurred on

30.11.2003.

He was rapidly transferred to the Gangarampur Public Health Centre for his treatment but he died.

It is also clear that the case is purely accidental in nature and there is no foul play detected in course of

inquiry.

Doctor Sudip Kumar Das opined that the cause of death in this case has been occurred due to shock and

haemorrhage for the reasons of multiple injuries, which are ante-mortem in nature, which is accepted by

the Ld. Forum. From the final report it is also clear that no foul play has been detected during the inquiry.

At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for OP NIC argued that the deceased was feeling ill and he died for

the reasons of his illness.

So it is not an accidental case. But the Ld. Forum hold and conclude that the plea taken by the Ld.

Counsel for OP NIC is totally false and baseless.

From the above analysis it is proved that the complainant’s husband viz. Gobinda Das died due to

accident while he was working in the said Rice Mill and the complainant is entitled to get benefit from OP

NIC as a recorded nominee under the policy condition.

It should be the duty of the OP NIC to pay the complainant’s reasonable claim.

But the OP NIC fails to do so causing deficiency in service & gross negligence on the part of OP NIC.

Therefore Point Nos. (1) and (2) both are decided accordingly on the basis of aforesaid findings. Hence.

O R D E R E D

That the Consumer Complaint No. 31/2007 is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.500/- assessed by the Ld. Forum.

That the complainant is entitled to get relief as against OP NIC as prayed for.

That there is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP NIC.

That the OP NIC is hereby directed to pay of Rs,1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh) only to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

That the OP NIC is hereby directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred) only to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

That the OP NIC is hereby further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards sum insured plus Rs.500/- towards cost i.e. total of Rs. (1,00,000/- + 500/-) = Rs.1,00,500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of order. If not paid within the prescribed period of time the said amount shall bear interest @ 10% p.a. till full payment.

That the case could not be disposed of within the specified period of time because the Ld. Advocates took adjournment several times.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Both parties are directed to collect their copies within 7 (seven) days from the date of passing final order.

I agree,

By order of this Forum