SHAKUNTALA SOLANKI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that the late husband of the complainant had obtained a 'Personal Accident Policy' commencing from 3.9.1998 and was to expire on 2.9.2010, for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000. It is the case of the complainant that her husband died as a result of accident on account of fall from two-wheeler where he sustained injuries and thus, under the terms of the policy, the claim was preferred before the respondent but it was repudiated on the ground that the death is not covered by the terms of the policy. On a complaint being filed before the District Forum, it was dismissed. An appeal filed before the State Commission, met with the same fate hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no evidence on record to show that the insured/deceased died on account of accident. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to a prescription sort of a thing dated 26.10.2001, in which there is some reference to an injury to the deceased but it is admitted position that no affidavit of this doctor was filed. In our view, he would have written the fall from the two-wheeler, perhaps, on what was told to him. Another certificate dated 27.10.2001, i.e., one day after the alleged accident makes no reference to any fall from two-wheeler or any accident. It is also admitted position that no F.I.R. was lodged with the police. It is admitted position that the deceased died on account of 'cardiac arrest'. In view of above, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that the petitioner has brought any admissible evidence in support of the fact that there was an accident and he died as a result of this accident and injuries caused by the accident. Hence, in our view, both the lower Forums were correct in dismissing the complaint and appeal respectively as the petitioner has failed to prove his case to make the claim fall within the terms and conditions of the 'Personal Accident Policy, obtained from the respondents.