BEBIBAI Vs. ADHIYAKSHA SHRI PRAKASH SMRITI SEVA SANSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Smt. Bebibai widow of Mahendra Singh Mandloi, village Balakwada, Tehsil Kasrawad, District Khargone against the order dated 18.2.2000 passed in Case No.28/98 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Nimar, Mandleshwar (for short the 'district Forum' ).

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent Shri Prakash Memorial Charitable Trust, Khargone is a Registered Body having Registration Number 10-11524/96 and Head Office at Khargone. Its objective is to help its members in case of accidental death or in any serious ailments. The appellant's husband Mahendra Singh Mandloi who was a Sahayak Samiti Sewak in Tribal Co-operative Society, Bhirawal applied for membership of this Trust on 3.11.1997. Unfortunately, he died on 11.1.1998 i. e. after two months and eight days of getting membership of this Trust. The appellant who is widow of the deceased Mahendra Singh Mandloi approached the Trust for financial assistance. The Trust after conducting enquiry found that deceased Mahendra Singh Mandloi was a liquor addict and was a heavy drunker for last 10 years. He was admitted in Mahendra Yashwantrao Hospital, Indore and in Government Hospital at Dhamnod for treatment. His kidney and liver were fully damaged and he was suffering from jaundice when he applied for membership. All these facts were suppressed by the deceased Mahendra Singh Mandloi. Therefore, as per Rule 8 of the Jeewan Prakash Kutumb Ashraya Scheme, he was not entitled for becoming a member and for any help from the Trust, therefore, the Trust rejected the application of the appellant. The appellant approached the District Forum alleging that the Trust has been deficient in not adhering to the terms and conditions of the bye-laws of the Trust and sought redressal from the District Forum. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties rejected the claim of the complainant. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) In this case, the only point to be examined is whether the respondents have committed any deficiency in service by not paying any assistance to the appellant.