ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER HOLDING COMPANY LTD. Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.03.2011, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 649/2010, "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Additional Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited" vide which, while allowing appeal, the order dated 15.09.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur in consumer complaint no. CC/08/25, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited obtained a group personal accident insurance policy from the OP for the benefit of its employees for the period 10.09.05 to 09.09.2006, according to which a sum of Rs. 4 lakh was payable in case of accidental death of any employee of the petitioner/complainant. The Policy No. OG-06-2303-9902-00000029 was issued by the insurance company on payment of Rs. 49,03,900/- as premium. It has been stated that an employee of the complainant, Maniram Sahoo aged 49 years, employed as Attendant Class-2 (Line) was doing some construction work for the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board on 10.07.2006 and he climbed on an electric pole 36' in height for the purpose. The said Maniram Sahoo fell down from the electrical pole and died. The report of the incident was lodged with the Police. The body of the deceased was taken to the hospital and post-mortem was conducted, the report of which is on record. The petitioner/complainant company paid a sum of Rs. 4 lakh to the legal representatives of the deceased and claimed that amount from the insurance company by sending the claim form alongwith the required documents on 1.08.2006. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 18.09.2007, saying that the said employee died due to cardiac arrest. The present consumer complaint was, thereupon filed, claiming a sum of Rs. 4 lakh from the Insurance Company alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment etc.

(3.) In the written statement to the complaint filed by the Insurance Company, it was denied that Maniram Sahoo died due to injuries on account of falling from electric pole. They stated that according to the post-mortem report, he died due to heart failure, as he had been suffering from diabetes and heart disease. The Insurance Company maintained that the claim had been rightly repudiated by them.