DEVANA MUTTABAI Vs. GOLDEN MULTI SERVICES CLUB LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance, precisely, in the writ petition is the action of the 2nd respondent -National Insurance Company in treating, the petitioner's claim as no claim on the ground of delay. Heard Sri B. Gajendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, her husband, one Sri late Devana Lova Raju, was employed in V.G.K. Aluminium Rolling Mills, Thadithota, Rajahmundry and was a member in Group General Accidental Insurance with Policy No. 10030/42/04/200012, which was issued for the period 1.10.2004 to 30.9.2005 by the National Insurance Company Limited, and the value of the said policy being Rs. 1,00,000/ - in case of any accidental death of the policy holder. As per the petitioner her husband died on 17.12.2004 at 7.30 p.m., due to snake bite while he was coming from duty, and the said fact was testified to by a medical practitioner when her husband was taken to him for treatment. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the same day she made a complaint to the S.H.O., Bommuru Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No. 269 of 2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. As per the petitioner all the documents relating to the cause of her husband's death were submitted to the respondent -Insurance Company as required under the Rules under the claim. The 2nd respondent by virtue of a letter dated 21.9.2005 rejected the claim made by the petitioner as time, barred. In this background, complaining the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE material available on record shows that the petitioner's husband passed away during the currency of the policy. The only ground, obviously, for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is delay in making the claim. It is a fact that earlier the petitioner had approached the District Forum, East Godavari District by raising a consumer dispute under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the order passed by the District Forum dated 2.1.2009 in IA No. 210 of 2008 in SR No. 1147 of 2008 has been placed on record by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which shows that the complaint filed by the petitioner herein before the District Forum was dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 24 -A of the Act.