M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1993/2017 Laxman Singh S/o Late Kachru Singh R/o – Himmat Khedi Tahasil Aalot District Ratlam (M.P.) ... Appellant VERSUS.

1. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Through Branch Manager Branch Aalot Tahasil Aalot District Ratlam (M.P.)

2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Through Divisional Office

115, Station Road Ratlam (M.P.) ... Respondents BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI RAVINDRA TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

NONE FOR RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R

( 16.02.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 2.8.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratlam (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 45/2017, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that late father of the complainant-Kachru Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased/ insured’), was having a saving bank account with the opposite party No.1/Bank. The deceased/insured had paid premium of Rs.12/- in order to obtain ‘Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna’ from the opposite party No.2-New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’). As per insurance policy in case of accidental death or permanent disability, there is provision of payment of Rs.2 lakhs to the nominee. It is further submitted that the deceased/insured died n 26.2.2016, while he was riding a motorcycle. He died as a consequence of internal injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. The complainant alleged that despite fulfillment of requisite formalities, accidental death claim was not paid.

Therefore, he alleged deficiency in service against the opposite parties.

3. The District Commisson observed that since the deceased/insured died due to heart attack, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for payment of accidental death claim.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commisson has committed error in dismissing the complaint. A certificate issued from Block Medical Officer clearly suggests that the deceased/insured died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident. Affidavit of the complainant’s mother, which has been relied upon by the District Commisson is not an acceptable document, since she was an illiterate lady and had merely put signatures on the said statement, since she was assured by the Investigator that claim amount in respect of death of her husband would be paid. Dr. Kishore Patidar has also clearly mentioned that the deceased/insured died as a result of injuries due to road traffic accident. In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and he prayed that the same be set aside.

6. We find that there is a statement of Dr. Kishore Kumar Patidar dated 27.8.2016 available on record, in which he has stated that the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report are accidental in nature. According to him the deceased/insured had fallen due to syncope and thereafter he died due to cardio vascular failure. The Block Medical Officer in reply to information sought under Right to Information Act, has also interpreted post- mortem report of Dr. Kishore Patidar and stated that the deceased/insured became unconscious and fell and he had cardio vascular failure, due to which he died. Above referred documents and the evidence available on record indicate that the deceased/insured first became unconscious and then he fell. Therefore, the injuries were definitely due to accident but the death cannot be concluded to have occurred due to the accident. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, we reach a conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

8. A