BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.143 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.25/2018, DATED 17.12.2019 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, NALGONDA Between:

1. Smt. Govinda Rajula Radha Kumari, W/o Govinda Rajula Venkata Shobhan Chalapathi Rao, Aged about 53 years, Occ.: Housewife.

2. Govinda Rajula Venkata Sai Sree Keerthi, Govinda Rajula Venkata Shobhan Chalapathi Rao, Aged about 24 years, Occ.: Student, Both are R/o Srinagar Colony, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda.

…….Appellants/Complainants And:

1. The Advocates Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Ltd., City Civil Court at Hyderabad-500 002, T.S.

Rep. by its Authorized Person/The Secretary.

2. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Corporate Cell, 3rd Floor, 1-7-21/1D, Ramalayam, Sarojinidevi Road, P.B.No.1651, Secunderabad-500 003, Rep. by its Regional Manager.

3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Suryapet Branch, D.No.1-4-150, 1st Floor, Near Old Municipal Office, K.K.Road, Suryapet Town & District-508 213, Rep. by its Branch Manager.

……..Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellants/Complainants : M/s V.Gouri Sankara Rao.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 /Opposite Party No.1 : Called absent.

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3/Opposite Party No.2 & 3 :

Sri M.Shanker QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

TUESDAY, THE 12^th D AY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the unsuccessful complainants against the order dated 17.12.2019 in CC.No.25/2018 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nalgonda, where under the complaint was dismissed without costs.

2. The brief averments of the complaint in CC 25/2018 are that the complainant No.1 is the wife and the complainant No.2 is the daughter of the life assured late GVS Chalapathi Rao, who being an Advocate obtained Group Personal Accident policy from the opposite party No.1 on 03.12.2015 vide Policy No.5005004215P110982359 which is valid from 03.12.2015 to 02.12.2016. The sum assured is at Rs.10,00,000/- , wherein that the complainant No.1 is the nominee; that on 30.06.2016 at 08:00 A.M., while the complainant’s No.1 husband was taken to the operation theatre for having Spinal Fusion Procedure in Rohini Super Speciality Hospital, suffered with sudden heart attack and died; that the death due to sudden heart attack comes within four corners of accidental death as mentioned in terms and conditions of the policy; that the complainants have submitted the claim and it was repudiated on 22.05.2018 on the ground that, sudden heart attack not comes under accidental death; that the complainant got issued a legal notice, dated 06.06.2018; that the brother of the complainant No.1 even gave complaint to the SHO, Nalgonda II Town Police Station against doctors of Rohini Hospital for the death of his brother-in-law; that as claim was repudiated, the complaint is filed claiming Rs.10,00,000/- towards assured amount with interest 24% per annum from the date of death till realization besides for damages and mental agony.

3. Though the notice was served on the opposite party No.1, failed to appear before the Commission below and called absent.

4. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.2 & 3 are that the scope of policy is death due to accident and an accident means “a sudden unforeseen and involuntary event caused by the external, visible and violent means”. It shows the policy does not cover death due to mere heart attack; that the insured admittedly died due to mere heart attack; that the order of the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, reported in CPJ 2007 (4) NC 335, is not applicable to the facts of the case, in view of the several case laws of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2016 (3) SCC 49. With this requested to dismiss the complaint with