NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. NAFEESA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 22nd August, 2008 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in CC 10/08. The appellant was the opposite party and the respondent was the complainant in the said Consumer Complaint No. 10/08. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant, the nominee of the life assured Mohammed Mahamood. The opposite party contended that the death of the life assured was not an accidental death caused by violent, outward and visible means so as to get the insurance claim. Before the Forum below Exts. Al to A5 and Bl and B2 documents were produced and marked from the side of the parties to the said complaint. Onan appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay the insured amount of Rs. 5 lakh with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint and cost of Rs. 2,000. Hence the present appeal by the opposite party/Insurance Company.

(2.) WHEN this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party. He submitted his arguments based on the ground urged in the Memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the life assured died due to cardiac arrest and the death of the life assured can only be treated as a natural death and it is not covered by the insurance policy issued by the appellant/ opposite party/Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the Forum below cannot be justified in interpreting the word accident, violent, external and visible means. He also relief on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. and Anr. V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,2009 2 CPJ 34, and submitted that the directions and conditions of the policy of insurance must be construed like any other contract and that the Court is not intended to rewrite the contract by substituting terms not intended by the parties to the contract. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

(3.) THE points that arise for consideration are: