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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member, Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Pramjit Kaur & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 682 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 13/11/2014 in Appeal No. 824/2013 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 12.5.2015

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Amarbir Singh, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Intimation of death ought to be given to insurance company immediately after death had occurred.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Death due to snake bite—Claim repudiated by insurance company on ground that intimation of death was not given to them immediately and post mortem was not conducted on dead body of deceased—Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal—Intimation of death of deceased was given to insurance company after seven days of his death—Under terms of policy, intimation of death ought to have been given to insurance company immediately after death had occurred—Insurance company was entitled to repudiate claim on this ground alone—Insurance policy taken by deceased was not a regular life insurance policy but it only carried an accidental benefit in case he was to die in an accident—Complainants failed to establish that deceased had died on account of an accident—No ground to interfere with order passed by State Commission. (Paras 5 to 9)

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—Late Shri Jagmohan Singh, husband of the complainant No.1 and father of the complainants Nos.2 & 3 obtained two insurance policies from the opposite party-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Under the aforesaid policy the insurance company was to pay the insured amount to the nominees of the insured, in case he was to die in an accident. Late Shri Jagmohan Singh died on 13-08-2010. Alleging that he had died due to snake bite in the fields, a claim was submitted to the insurance company. The claim, however, came to be repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that (i) the intimation of the death was not given to them immediately and (ii) post mortem was not conducted on the dead body of the deceased. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking payment of the insured amount along with interest.

2. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the same ground on which the claim had been repudiated.

3. Vide its order dated 13-06-2013 the concerned District Forum directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the insurance company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 13-11-2014 the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved the complainants are before us by way of this revision petition.

5. It is not in dispute that intimation of the death of the deceased was given to the insurance company after seven days of his death. Under the terms of the policy, the intimation of the death ought to have been given to the insurance company immediately after the death had occurred. The purpose behind insisting upon immediate reporting of the death to the insurance company is to enable the said company to investigate the cause of the death. This is more so, in a case where the claim is payable only in a case of accidental death. If a prompt intimation of the death is not given to the insurance company, it may not be possible for the investigator appointed by the insurance company to ascertain the correct cause of the death of the insured, since valuable evidence in this regard may be lost with the passage of time. The insurance company was entitled to repudiate the claim on this ground alone.

6. It is also an admitted position that the insurance policy taken by the deceased was not a regular life insurance policy but it only carried an accidental benefit in case he was to die in an accident. The case of the complainants being that the deceased had died on account of snake bite when he went to his fields the onus was on them to prove the cause of his death. The complainant did file a certificate purporting to be issued by Dr. Kalra, but neither filed his evidence by way of affidavit nor did they examine him as a witness before the District Forum. Consequently, the certificate purporting to have been issued by him did not stand duly proved. In the absence of either the affidavit or verbal deposition of Dr. Kalra, the District Forum could not have accepted the certificate purporting to have been issued by him as regards the cause of death of Late Shri Jagmohan Singh. Had the complainants filed his evidence by way of affidavit or produced him as a witness, the insurance company would have got an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Kalra as regards the cause of the death of the deceased. That having not been done there is no escape from the conclusion that the complainants failed to establish that the deceased had died on account of an accident.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a report dated 10-08-2011 purporting to be issued by Dr. Vipin Gupta, Medical Investigator appointed










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
whatsapp-icon Back to top