UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GURDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSURER -opposite party feeling aggrieved by the order of the Union Territory Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has filed this petition. By the impugned order State Commission had set aside the order of the District Forum and thus allowed the complaint and directed payment of insured amount to the respondent-complainant, legal representative of the insured.

(2.) BHAJAN Singh, deceased had taken personal accident insurance policy from the petitioner. It provided that if any time during the currency of the policy insured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external violent and visible means, the insurer shall pay the insured sum to his legal representative as the case may be. It was the case of the respondent-complainant who is the widow of Bhajan Singh that on 14.1.1994 during the subsistence of the insurance policy Bhajan Singh climbed the house roof top for taking stacked wood but during that process he slipped down and sustained internal injuries and subsequently died on the same day. When the respondent lodged claim with the insurer, it was repudiated on the ground that it was not on account of accident Bhajan Singh died but he died on account of heart failure.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum complainant went in appeal before the State Commission. State Commission noted that while the complainant led her own evidence and produced one witness in support of her case, no evidence was led by the insurer. In support of its plea the insurer-petitioner produced only the then branch manager who could not be said to be an eye-witness otherwise versed with the facts of the case on the basis of the records of the case of the insurer. The basis of the repudiation of the claim by the insurer was the report of the Investigating Officer who said that Bhajan Singh died of heart attack as per the report to the Investigating Officer by the Chowkidar of the village. Neither the Investigating Officer nor the Chowkidar was produced, nor their evidence by way of affidavit was filed. After examining the evidence on record, State Commission was of the view that version of the complainant was correct and upheld the same. State Commission, therefore, allowed the complaint and directed petitioner-insurer to pay Rs. 2.00 lakhs to the respondent herein within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum. Cost of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded to the respondent. We do not find it a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, This revision petition is dismissed.