NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD vs Jatinder Kumar Sharma

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 25.02.2011 passed by the Learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No.241 of 2005 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Kumar Sharma by which, appeal was partly allowed and order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified and claim of Rs.2,80,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest and litigation cost of Rs.4,000/- was allowed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was insured with OP/petitioner under Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy for the period from 27.7.1996 to 26.7.2006 for Rs.4,00,000/-. Complainant suffered head injury on account of scooter accident on 11.12.1999. He was admitted in Patel Hospital, Jalandhar on 18.12.1999. Later on admitted in Arora Neuro Centre, Ludhiana on 21.12.1999, as he suffered paralysis on left side due to head injury. As a result of paralysis, complainant ''s left foot, left hand and the left eye got paralysed. Later on, complainant was admitted to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana from where, he was referred to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, but his condition did not improve. Complainant was still suffering from paralysis on the left side of the body and headache. Complainant lodged claim with the OP, but OP repudiated claim on the ground that complainant was suffering from hypertension, which led to the ailment. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint. OP resisted the claim and submitted that story of accident on 11.12.1999 was false, as neither FIR was lodged, nor complainant was hospitalized immediately after accident and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with 12% p.a. interest from the date of repudiation and Rs.4,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and learned State Commission vide impugned order reduced amount of compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.2,80,000/- and further reduced rate of interest from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of FIR regarding accident and hospitalization of the complainant on the date of accident, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal partly and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint; hence, order of learned State Commission be set aside and revision petition be allowed and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned State Commission has dealt with all the aspects of the case and order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that complainant/respondent had taken Insurance Policy for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- under Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy from OP/petitioner and this Policy was valid from 27.7.1996 to 26.7.2006. As per averment of the complainant, the complainant met with an accident on 11.12.1999. It is admitted case of the complainant that neither FIR was lodged, nor he took medical treatment before 18.12.1999. Perusal of record further reveals that he further suffered injury either on 13-12-1999 or 14/12/1999 or 15.12.1999. Perusal of medical record of different hospitals further contains this fact that complainant ''s case was the case of accident on 11.12.1999, followed by headache since the accident. No doubt, there is variation of dates in respect of subsequent accidents and in different medical reports different dates of 13.12.1999, 14.12.1999 and 15.12.1999 of subsequent accidents have been mentioned, but accident of 11.12.1999, as alleged in the complaint has not been disputed in any medical report. Merely because FIR was not lodged regarding accident and complainant was not admitted for medical treatment immediately, it cannot be inferred that complainant did not sustain any injury on account of accident. Learned State Commission in its impugned order has observed as under: "22. Even if the respondent had not got FIR or DDR registered for the roadside accidents, still it cannot be held that he had not met with the accidents when it is clearly mentioned in the medical history of the respondent. Sometimes when the accident takes place the man suffers the internal mental jerk which shakes the whole brain, although, on the face of it there was no bleeding and no wound and no swelling. It is only the sufferer who know or the doctor who treats the patient. 23. The version of the appellants that the ailment of the respondent was consequential to his hypertension is totally misconceived ".

In such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that complainant ''s left side of the body was paralysed due to accident.

LEARNED State Commission has rightly dealt with all the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner, at length and has rightly allowed 70% of the claim on the basis of disability sustained by the complainant. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.