Life Insurance Corporation of India vs HARI CHAND

THE Life Insurance Corporation appeals against the order of the District Forum, Rewari. Since this appeal could not be pressed seriously by the authorized representative of the appellant, it suffices to notice the facts and the merits in their bearest outline.

THE respondent-consumer Shri Hari Chand had taken out two insurance policies with the appellants with accidental benefits. He met with an accident on the 1st of March, 1991 resulting in grievous injuries to him. Consequently, he was confined to bed for about nine months continuously and even thereafter had become permanently disabled with a total and permanent loss of both his hands rendering him completely unfit to do any meaningful work. THE respondent-appellant apparently bad some other insurance policy also and since he could not afford to make the premium payments therefore after the accident and his permanent disability, he applied to the Insurance Corporation within ninety days of the accident for all the benefits accruing to him on account of the mishap. However, the LIC paid no heed and he was put off by one excuse or the other. THE insurers however, took him to the Nursing Home of Dr. Goel at Rewari for their satisfaction regarding the permanent no benefit was afforded to him. Unable to secure any redres he preferred a complaint before the District Forum. On notice being issued, the broad matrix of the respondent having taken out the number of insurance policies was admitted. The stand taken was that the disability needed for the benefits of the accidental policy must be total and permanent, and further that it must be of a nature that neither at the time of suffering the injury nor at any time thereafter, the person could have any work, occupation or profession.

The District Forum on the basis of the materials found as a fact that the respondent could not pick up anything with his band or handle any thing or do any work though the injured hands have been saved from being amputated. It further noticed that having been an employee of the Haryana Roadways at the time of the accident, the latter on compassionate grounds had retained him in service where he remains sitting at the gate. Consequently, it was directed that the appellant company was liable to provide accident benefits arising to the respondent under both the insurance policies.

H.K. Kohli, the authorized representative of the appellant, being a layman could not pose any serious challenge to the order under appeal. It was half-heartedly argued that since both the hands of the respondent had not been totally amputed, his disability could not be deemed to be permanent and he was not entitled to the benefits of the policies. We are unable to appreciate the somewhat callous stand taken on behalf of the appellant-Corporation. No serious challenge was posed at all before us to the firm finding of fact that the respondent could neither handle any thing in his hands nor pick it up from the ground and further was unable to do any work. No convincing argument could be raised before us for the tall stand that the benefit of the accidental policy could only be afforded if both the limbs had been actually amputated and not otherwise. We find no option but to reject the somewhat patently lame submission made by Mr.Kohli. It was then tenuously argued before us by Mr. Kohli that the respondent was still continuing in the service of his former employer and therefore, no accidental benefit could be given to him. The aforesaid submission has equally to be noticed and rejected. No serious challenge at all was raised to the finding of the District Forum that the continuance in his job by his employer i.e. Haryana Roadways was purely on a compassionate ground. It was expressly noticed that the respondent could not do any work but was merely left to sit at the gate of the Haryana Roadways. Mr. Kohli was unable to cite either principle or auhtority or any provision which warrants the denial of accidental benefits of the policy in the situation aforesaid. Significantly, neither the happening of the accident nor the serious nature of the injuries suffered by the respondent was at all disputed before us and manifestly so before the District Forum either.

THE foregoing reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a modest sum of Rs. 300/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.