LAWS(CHHCDRC)-2005-7-4

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MAKHAN SAHU

Decided On July 26, 2005
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
Makhan Sahu Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise of the common order dated 8.1.2004, in Complaint No. 176/03 between Makhan Sahu v. The United India Insurance Co,. Complaint No. 177/03 between Makhan Sahu v. The New India Insurance Co., and Complaint No. 178/03 between Makhan Sahu v. Oriental Insurance Co., passed by the District Consumer Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short). Since the complainant and cause of action as alleged are the same both these appeals are being disposed of by this order.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the complainant had obtained personal accident insurance policies from three Insurance Companies for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac). As per averments made in the complaints, within subsistence of the aforesaid policies eyesight of his right eye was totally lost due to accident i.e., lightning on 6.6.2000, while the complainant was returning from duty. The insurers failed to pay the insured sum hence the complainant had filed three separate complaints before the District Forum against the three Insurance Companies from whom he had obtained insurance policies. The insurers resisted relevant complaint on the ground that no such accident had taken place. Loss of eyesight of the right eye of the complainant was due to glaucoma and not accident as alleged by the complainant and the complainant had suppressed this fact while obtaining the policy. Hence he was not entitled to recover the insured sum.

(3.) THE learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the Insurance Companies had committed deficiency in service by not making payment of the claim of the complainant and held them liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000, in equal proportion, to the complainant. It is against this order that these two appeals have been filed. The third Insurance Company i.e., The United India Insurance Co. chose to make payment of its share to the complainant as directed by the District Forum.