APPEAL NO. 177 of 2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Having its registered office at:

87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001 And having its Regional Office at

5^th Floor, Popular House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380 009. …Appellant (Ori. Opp. No.2)

Vs.

1. Legal heirs of deceased Mukeshbhai Keshavbhai Raiyani, Hanshaben Mukeshbhai Raiyani, Near Animal Hospital, Mavdi Road, Mu.Gondal, Dist: Rajkot.

2. Gondal Juth Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Opp. Housing Board, Jetpur Road, Mu. Gondal, Dist: Rajkot. ...Respondents (No.1-Ori.Complainant No. 2-Ori. Opp. No.1)

Appearance: Ld. Advocate Mr.A.R.Mehta for the appellant No one remains present for the respondents Coram : Shri M.J.Mehta Judicial Member Order by Shri M.J.Mehta, Judicial Member

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot (addl) in Consumer Complaint No. 437 of 2018.

2. The appellant has preferred instant appeal on the grounds that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in law.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under: Ori.

Complainant does the house hold works and Ori. Opp. No. 1 is doing business as Gondal Juth Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. And Ori. Opp. No. 2 is the New India Assurance Co. is the insurance company.

Ori. Complainant’s husband is the member of Gondal Juth Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. and has obtained the policy from Ori. Opp. No. 2 and during the policy period on 02.10.2016 complainant’s husband died due to honey bees attack, thereafter the Ori. Complainant claimed before the insurance company, Opp. No.2 and insurance company has repudiated the claim.

thereafter the Ori. Complainant has filed the complaint before the Ld. Trial and Ld. Trial Forum has allowed the complaint and awarded the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-with 7% interest to be paid by the Opp. No. 2.

4. Ld. Ad. Mr. Mehta appeared on behalf of the appellant side and submitted before me that here in the appeal respondents were duly served upon but they did not remain present before the Commission.

5. Thereby Ld. Ad. Mr. Mehta on behalf of the appellant side has submitted before me that such policy in question is presented here at page no. 60 it is Personal Accident Insurance policy wherein the incident taken place did not cover under this policy, as per the page no. 41 there was no poisonous content found in the stomach of the deceased, cause of death is occurred due to heart attack but it cannot be considered as the accidental death.

6. I gone through the judgment of the Ld. Trial Forum wherein Ld. Trial Forum has comes to conclusion that death was occurred due to heart attack and it was due to honey bees attack and thereby it should be treated as an accidental death and also considered so many judgements that heart attack is covered within provision of personal accident policy and allowed the claim, here I would like to note that no such judgement is discussed by Ld. Trial Forum in their judgement, than how they came up with this conclusion.

7. Ld. Ad. Mr. Mehta for the appellant has drawn my attention at page no. 31 to 38 in which Post Mortem report where in cause of death is pending till report of chemical analysis of viscera received so the cause of death is not disclosed thereafter page nos. 40 and 41 was referred on page no. 41 no such chemical poison was found, here Ld. Ad. Mr. Mehta submits that without appreciating page no. 41 which was availed to the Ld. Trial Forum during the proceeding but it was not appreciated by the Ld. Trial Forum, that’s why judgement passed by the Ld. Trial Forum is not tenable in eye of law.

8. Thereby at this juncture I came to conclusion that this honey bees attack caused the heart attack not covered within the purview of the personal accident policy.

9. Ld. Ad. For the appellant Mr. Mehta has cited judgem