SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager —Petitioner
versus
P Sreenivasulu & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1742 of 2007
(From the order dated 17.01.2007 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, Circuit Bench, Tirupati in Appeal no. 304 of 2006)
Decided on 5.5.2014

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr S M Tripathi, Advocate.
For the Respondent Mrs K Radha, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
All deaths due to medical reasons are not to be taken as death due to accident.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Group Personal Accident Policy—Non-settlement of death claim—Group Personal Accident Policy for medical students was designed to give financial help in case of death of earning parent who was supporting education of student and due to fatal accident students to continue their education to complete the course—Mother of student died due to heart attack and father of complainant was an earning parent and is still alive—It is not the case that heart attack resulted due to any accidental mishap—It is also nowhere on record that mother of complainant was paying for education of complainant through her business—Orders of State Commission and District Forum set aside and complaint dismissed. (Paras 13 to 16)

       Result: Revision Petition allowed.

ORDER

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision Petition no. 1742 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner who was the opposite party no.1 against respondent no.1 who was the complainant and respondent no. 2 who was the opposite party no. 2.

2. The brief facts of the case as gleaned from the record of the file are as follows:

3. The complainant/ respondent no. 1 took one Group Personal Accident Policy from United India Insurance Co. Ltd., with premium of Rs.1,700/- on 22.09.2003 at N T R Health University, Vijayawada. The policy period was 4½ years equivalent to MBBS course. In case of accidental death of earning parent the petitioner – Insurance Company had to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent no. 1 apart from the tuition and boarding fees paid to the college by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The mother of the respondent no. 1 P Lakshmi Devi died due to heart attack suddenly on 27.11.2004, while she was talking to one Mr Dr M Sheshadri Reddy, Proddatur. The said doctor informed that respondent no.1’s mother died due to heart attack. One month later the respondent no.1 approached the petitioner to settle the claim. The mother of the respondent no. 1 was doing cloth business at home. The respondent no. 1 got issued notice through advocate and the petitioners received the same, but did not sent any reply. Therefore, the petitioners committed deficiency of service and adopted unfair trade practice. Thus the complaint may be allowed.

4. Petitioner – insurance company filed a counter admitting that the Group Personal Accidental Policy for medical students of N T R University of Health Services, Vijayawada was issued to the students. In case of accidental death of students it was for Rs.2,00,000/- and to the earning parent of the student against accidental death it was Rs.3,00,000/-. The policy was issued to the respondent as a medical student. The claim would be entertained by the petitioner – insurance company in case of death of earning parent accidentally. There was no liability to the insurance company to pay the insured sum, in case the death was not due to accident. Lakshmi Devi died on 27.11.2004 due to heart attack confirmed by doctor at Proddatur. Heart attack was a natural cause of death and not an accidental death. There was no liability on the part of the insurance company to pay the amount. Lakshmi Devi was not an earning member. The father of the petitioner was an earning member and was alive. It was not correct that the deceased was doing cloth business at her home. It was invented and created for purpose of the case. It was not shown in the legal notice. It was not correct that respondent no. 2 was the branch of petitioner. Respondent no. 2 was under the control of Divisional Office, Kadapa. Respondent no. 2 was not concerned with the Group Personal Accidental Policy for medical students issued exclusively by the petitioner – insurance company. The complaint was bad for misjoinder of unnecessary party i.e., - petitioner – insurance company. Thus, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5. Respondent no. 2 filed a counter separately with the same facts stated by petitioner – insurance company. The petitioner – insurance company has stated that the policy was taken from petitioner and from Respondent no. 2. Hence, respondent no. 2 was not a necessary party to the complaint. Respondent no. 2 has been shown as party as respondent no. 2 inORDER to save the jurisdiction of complaint. Petitioner was only a competent party to settle the claim. Respondent no. 2 was the branch under the control of Divisional Office, Kadapa it had no connection with the Divisional Office, Vijayawada, i.e., petitioner – insurance company, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

6. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kadapa (‘the District Forum’) after hearing the counsel and perusing the materials on record allowed the complaint with following observations:

“In the result, the complaint is partly allowed without costs and compensations,


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top