Back
B.H.Gadhavi
A-20-177
Page 1 of 6
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD,
Court-2.
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
5th 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.
Details
DD
MM
YY
Date of Judgment
29 01
2022
Date of filling
06 06
2019
Duration
23 07
02
B.H.Gadhavi
A-20-177
Page 2 of 6
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
B.H.Gadhavi
A-20-177
Page 3 of 6
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,
B.H.Gadhavi
A-20-177
Page 4 of 6
that’s why judgem
