FULBATI BAI W/O. LATE BIDESHI RAM, R/O. VILLAGE RANITARAI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT Vs. LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS. MUMBAI, OFFICE 10TH FLOOR, TOWER (A) PENISULA BUSINESS PARK, GANPAT RAO KADAM MARG,LOWER PATEL, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision no. 2638 of 2016 has been filed against the judgment dated 10.03.2016 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (the 'State Commission') in First Appeal no. 50 of 2016.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that a group accident benefit policy was issued in favour of the petitioner's husband late Shri Bideshi Ram by respondent no. 2 through respondent no. 1. According to the above-mentioned policy, if the policy holder dies accidentally/ unexpectedly then his nominee will be entitled to Rs.5,00,000.00. The husband of the petitioner on 101.2015 was coming as per his daily routine from Balod to his village Ranitarai by cycle, when he slipped into the Kharkhara Canal resulting in his death by drowning in the canal. After the death of petitioner's husband, the petitioner filed the claim through respondent no. 3, but respondent no. 1 denied/ repudiated the claim saying that at the time of incident the deceased person had consumed alcohol and as per the post mortem report 200 CC alcohol were found with food particles in his stomach. Thus they repudiated the claim on 16.03.2015 on the ground that the deceased was intoxicated. But no alcohol had been consumed by the deceased at the time of incident. He may have smelt of alcohol due to taking syrups for cold and cough or due to stale food particles. More over the post mortem report specifically says the cause of death was due to drowning in water resulting in asphyxiation. Accordingly, non-payment of claim comes under deficiency in service and unfair trade practise by respondent no.1. Thus, the petitioner shall be given the amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 with interest, Rs.2,00,000.00 for the mental harassment and any other relief.

(3.) The respondent no.1 in his reply has stated that there has been no fault on their part nor has there been any negligent or mala fide intention on their part. Thus, the complaint was outside the jurisdiction of the Court and is liable to be dismissed.