STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/5/A/16/2021 null IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co, Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - IFFCO tower, Plot No.3, Sector 29,through its auth, sig.NCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Smt. Sudesh Devi PRESENT ADDRESS - w/o late Sh. Karanpal singh r/o Vill. Dhadeki Thana Majahidpur Da Khas Teh. LaksarNCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

Sehkari Ganna vikas Samiti Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - Laksar through its Secretary NCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MS. KUMKUM RANI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. C.M. SINGH, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Smt. Anjali Gusain (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr. Shreegopal Narsan (Advocate)

DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal has been directed against judgment and order dated 03.12.2020 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 257 of 2018 styled as Smt. Sudesh Devi Vs. Sehkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. and Anr., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs. Three Lacs alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint dated 01.11.2018 till actual realization as well as Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/-towards litigation charges to the complainant.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the deceased (Late Sh. Karanpal Singh) husband of the complainant – Smt. Sudesh Devi was a farmer and member of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 has got the Group Life Insurance of its member, which also includes the husband of the complainant. The said Group Insurance was valid for the period from 23.01.2018 to 22.01.2019. As per complaint, Late Sh. Karanpal Singh met with an accident on dated 26.03.2018 while he was returning back to his village after attending a wedding, on his tractor and sustained injuries; he was immediately taken to the local clinic (Dushyant Diagnostic Centre) by a resident Sh. Bijender, wherein the doctor referred him to another hospital. However, he passed away in the meanwhile. On investigation of the record, it was noted that Late Sh. Karanpal Singh died due to heart attack and not due to an accident. As per Panchnama, it was recorded that the deceased appeared to have died due to a heart attack. As per Post Mortem Report (PMR) the reason of death could not be ascertained without Viscera report. The intimation about the occurrence was immediately given to the opposite parties alongwith all the requisite papers and also submitted the claim on dated 25.04.2018 before the opposite party No. 2, but the opposite party No. 2 instead of paying claim amount to the complainant, has repudiated the complainant’s claim vide letter dated 05.09.2018 stating that the death of life assured – Late Sh. Karanpal Singh was due to heart attack, not by an accident. Thereby by repudiating the claim of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 – insurance company has committed gross negligence and deficiency in service, therefore, the complaint was submitted.

3. The opposite party No. 1 – Sehkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. has submitted its written statement and conceded that the deceased - Late Sh. Karanpal Singh was the Kissan Member of the answering opposite party and as per record, his Kissan Code is 3427. Like other members of answering opposite party, the insurance of deceased with opposite party No. 2 was effected. After submission of the claim form before the answering opposite party, the answering opposite party has forwarded the same to the insurance company, therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the answering opposite party. The complainant has alleged in her complaint that the claim of deceased was repudiated due to the reason that the death occurred due to heart attack with which opposite party No. 1 has no concern. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed against the answering oppo