HANSI DEVI Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Complainant -appellant against the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the District Forum, Bharatpur in complaint case No. 316/05, by which the complaint of the Complainant -appellant was dismissed.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That the Complainant -appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents LIC before the District Forum, Bharatpur on 7.11.2005 inter alia stating that her husband Jeevan Singh now deceased, had taken a LIC policy bearing No. 190960455 for a sum of Rs. 1 lac on 26.9.1994 with accidental benefit. It was further stated in the complaint that the deceased had died on 28.6.2005 due to snake bite and that fact was certified by the SDM, Bharatpur and further by the Panchayat of the village and further doctor had also certified and thereafter a claim was preferred, but the respondents LIC had made a payment in respect of the actual amount of the policy to the tune of Rs. l,66,100 on 13.7.2005,but the payment in respect of accidental benefit was denied and for that the complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the respondents LIC on 26.12.2005 before the District Forum, Bharatpur stating that the claim in respect of the accidental benefit was rightly denied and the fact that the deceased had died due to snake bite was not found established from the evidence on record and further since the Complainant appellant had accepted the amount of Rs. 1,66,100 on 13.7.2005 in full and final settlement of the claim, therefore, the Complainant appellant was not entitled to any amount more and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. The District Forum after hearing both the parties, through the impugned order dated 10.11.2006 had dismissed the complaint as stated above, inter alia holding that since the amount of Rs. 1,66,100 was accepted by the Complainant appellant on 13.7.2005 in full and final settlement, therefore, she was not entitled to any amount more and further the fact that the deceased had died due to snake bite had not been found established by the Complainant appellant and thus she was not entitled to any claim in respect of the accidental benefit. Aggrieved from that order, this appeal has been filed by the Complainant -appellant.

(3.) IN this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the Complainant -appellant is that the findings recorded by the District Forum on above two counts are not sustainable as the Complainant -appellant is an illiterate lady and in the receipt of Rs. 1,66,100 she had put her thumb impression and, therefore, to say that the above amount was accepted by the Complainant -appellant in full and final settlement of the claim was not correct one and' further the fact that the deceased had died due to snake bite should have been found established as the Complainant -appellant had produced three documents in support of this. 1. that a certificate dated 7.9.2007 issued by the SDM, Bharatpur stating that the deceased had died on 28.6.2005 due to some bite of some poisonous insect/snake, 2. that there is a certificate issued by Dr. B.S. Yadav, Sr. Medical Officer, Bharatpur stating that the deceased had died on 28.6.2005 after being bite by some poisonous insect, 3. that the Panchayat of the villagers had also certified that fact, and, therefore, the findings recorded by the District Forum in respect of the accidental benefit be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.