STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JUBEDA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1986') has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 3.5.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Bundi in Case No. 134/2002 by which the complaint filed by the complainant -respondent No. 1 under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed and the appellants were directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs to the complainant -respondent No. 1 along with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 5.3.2002 and the complainant -respondent No. 1 was also awarded Rs. 5,000/ - towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/ - as cost of litigation.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: The complainant -respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the learned District Forum, Bundi on 15.7.2002 stating inter alia that her husband Mustaq Hussain Jedi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was an employee in the Panchayat Samiti Taleda and was working as Teacher Gr. III. It was further stated in the complaint that with effect from March, 1995, group insurance policy was introduced compulsorily by the State of Rajasthan (appellant No. 1) and the deceased was holder of policy and as per terms of that policy, if the employee had fallen from the staircase and had died thereafter, in such a case, Rs. 2 lacs would be paid to his LRs. It was further stated in the complaint that on 26.8.2000 at about 1.00 p.m., deceased had fallen from the staircase of his house, as a result of which he received injuries in his head and, thereafter, he was admitted in the Bundi Hospital from where he was referred to Kota. It was further stated in the complaint that at Kota, deceased was admitted in M.L. Baheti Hospital and Research Centre on 26.8.2000 where he was treated by Neuro Surgeon Dr. Mamraj, but on 27.8.2000, deceased succumbed to his injuries. It was further stated in the complaint that thereafter, the complainant -respondent No. 1, who is wife of deceased, preferred her claim under the group insurance policy before the appellants, but her claim was repudiated by the appellants stating that since deceased had died because of heart attack and in case of death by heart attack, the amount under the group insurance was not payable. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the appellants stating that since deceased had died due to heart failure, therefore, his death was natural one and it could not be treated as accidental one and, thus, claim under the terms and conditions of the group insurance policy, was not payable and it was rightly repudiated by appellants. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum, Bundi through impugned order dated 3.5.2003 allowed the complaint of the complainant -respondent No. 1 in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia that the complainant -respondent No. 1 being wife of the deceased was entitled to the amount under the group insurance policy and her claim was wrongly repudiated by the appellants. Aggrieved from the said order dated 3.5.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Bundi, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.