AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 25.10.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.681 of 2011 in which order dated 15.03.2011 of Jhajjar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 323 of 2008 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 25.10.2012 of the State Commission.
While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OP No.2 and 3 ) were Appellants, Respondent no.1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant ) was Respondent No.1, Respondent no.2 ( hereinafter also referred to as ‘Bank) was Respondent no.2 in the said FA No. 681 of 2011 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioners were OP No.2 and 3, Respondent no.1 was Complainant and Respondent no.2 was OP No.1 before the District Forum in CC No. 323 of 2008.
Notice was issued to the Respondents on 25.09.2013. Petitioners filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 16.04.2019. Respondent No.1 filed Written Arguments / Synopsis but no Written Arguments / Synopsis have been filed on behalf of Respondent no.2 / Bank.
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Sh. Umed Singh ( deceased insured ), husband of Complainant opened a Saving Bank account with OP No.1 / Bank and as such became member of Group Personal Accident Insurance for one year, according to which in case of an accidental death, legal heirs of deceased were entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The insured Umed Singh expired on 01.09.2008. The wife of deceased insured / complainant approached OPs for the insurance benefits but they refused to pay the same to the complainant. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum.
Vide Order dated 15.03.2011 in CC no. 323 of 2008, the District Forum directed that respondent no.2 and 3 ( insurance Company) shall pay all the benefits as available under relevant Group Personal Accident Insurance with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 10.12.2008 till its actual realization.
Aggrieved by the said Order dated 15.03.2011 of District Forum, Petitioners herein appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 25.10.2012 in FA No. 681 of 2011, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioners. Hence, the Petitioners are before this Commission now in the present RP.
Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 25.10.2012 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
i. The complainant committed breach of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.05.2007 by which the risk of the customers of the bank for Death and Permanent Total Disablement was extended if it arose solely from ‘accident caused by external visible means’ and it was stated that MOU would be subject to terms and conditions and exclusions of the Standard Group Personal Accident Policy of the insurers.
ii. In the scheme it was clearly mentioned that unless a reasonable cause is shown, the written intimation should reach within 30 days from the date of accident.
iii. In the present case, no intimation whatsoever was given to the Petitioners and Petitioners came to know about the said occurrence for the first time only when it was served in the present Complaint.
iv. No FIR / DDR was filed with the police and as such no police report was furnished. No post mortem was conducted and as such no Post Mortem Report was submitted to the petitioner, which deprived the petitioner of its valuable right to conduct its own investigation that death of the insured was caused by an accident by external visible means. Reliance is placed on the findings of this Commission in Karambir Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., RP No. 3623 of 2012.
v. Even though the Bank was informed of the accidental death after many days, no intimation was given of the same to the petitioner and petitioner was not even impleaded as a party to the complaint and it was only after the evidence was led, an application was moved on behalf of the complainant to implead the Petitioners.
Heard learned counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below:
8.1 Counsel for the Petitioners repeated the points which are stated in para 7, grounds for challenging the order of the State Commission, hence the same are not being repeated here.
8.2 Counsel for Respondent no.1-Complainant argued that there are concurrent findings of the Fora below regarding the accidental cause of insured deceased. The Bank did not provide any guidelines / brochure to the policy holder at the time of signing the policy which is mandatory duty of the bank and, therefore, unaware about the terms and conditions of the policy and she cremated her husband without any police complaint or post mortem report because there is no intervention of third party in case of her husband’s death and, therefore, there is no question for filing the FIR or Post Mortem Report.
8.3. It is further argued that it is the primary duty of the bank to inform the Petitioners as soon as possible after receiving the information of accidental death of insured and it is the duty of respondent no.2 to make aware its customers to the terms and conditions of the Scheme. It is not in their knowledge that for claiming the insurance amount, Petitioners need FIR or Post Mortem Report.
8.4. It is further argued that there was no delay on the part of the Complainant in giving information to the bank as date of death of insured is 01.09.2008 and the bank flatly refused the claim on 02.12.2008. Therefore, complainant gave information to the bank within reasonable time. Counsel further argued that it was the duty of the bank to inform the Petitioners regarding death of insured after receiving the information from the legal heirs of deceased. Further, legal heir of deceased came to know that Petitioner is a party in the said scheme when Bank gave affidavit in the complaint before the District forum. Thereafter, the complainant impleaded the Petitioners as a necessary party in the said complaint.
8.5. Even the Petitioners did not enquire / investigate regarding the contention of the complainant and they could have sent investigator to find out the truth about the cause of death of deceased. Counsel for respondent no.1 also relied upon the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court :
a. Kandiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, Civil Appeal No. 2329of 1999.
b. Mst.Sagani Vs. Rameswar Das and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2000
c. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Paresh Mohanlal Parmar, Civil Appeal No. 10398 of 2011.
We have gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum and other relevant records. In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below with respect to the death being an accidental death, the District Forum after considering the evidence adduced before it have come to finding that death of husband of complainant occurred in an accident while he was starting an engine and expired while caught in the patta of the engine. The District Forum also observed that under the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no apprehension of any suspicion in the death of the husband of the complainant and as such, Post mortem report and police report was not essential. Extract of relevant para of the order of the District Forum is reproduced below :
“……As per Ex. P-3 the insurance was valid upto 9.10.2008 and admittedly Umed Singh had expired on 1.9.2008. The only dispute qua payment of compensation is whether Umed Singh had expired in an accident or as a natural death. As per the case of complainant Umed Singh had expired by way of an accident while starting an engine to irrigate the land and has been caught in patta and as an impact, has died accidentally. As per the case of complainant, the son of complainant Ravinder has separated his father from the engine who had already expired in order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record her duly sworned affidavit Ex. P1. whereby all the contents of complaint have been narrated. Ex P.2 is death certificate of Umed Singh and the same is not disputed by either of the parties Ex. P-3 is the receipt by virtue of which Umed Singh had became member of the Group Insurance. As per the said receipt, the death has occurred during the subsistence of the policy. The complainant has also placed on record affidavit of her son Ravmder as Ex. P-4 who has proved the contents of complaint on oath. Similarly, the complainant has proved the affidavit of Surender Singh son of Raj Kumar. Ex. Sarpanch of village Palra as Ex. P-5 whereby the fact of death of Umed Singh while starting, an engine has been proved. Ex. P-6 is affidavit of Narpat Singh Lamberdar of village Palra who has also verified the death of Umed Singh by way of an accident while starting an engine. All the witnesses have categorically stated that postmortem report and FIR has not been registered as there was no apprehension of any foul play in the death of Umed Singh. Ex. P-7 is copy of order dated 21.7.2009 earlier passed by this forum in a case titled Kamla Devi Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited whereby this Forum has already decided a complaint in favour of complainant Kamla Devi who is also the complainant in the present complaint. As per Ex. P-7, the husband of Kamla Devi namely Umed Singh had expired in an accident while starting an engine and this forum has earlier observed that Umed Singh had died in an accident. Therefore, view of the evidence brought on record by the complainant, it stands proved that death of Umed Singh occurred in an accident while he was starting an engine and had expired while caught in the patta of engine. It is also proved that under the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no apprehension of any suspicion in the death of Umed Singh and as such, postmortem report and police report was not essential. Therefore, the objections of the respondents to the effect that the complainant has not placed on record the postmortem report and FIR are ill-founded and not legally tenable. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the benefits of Group Personal Accident Insurance from the respondent no.2 as per terms and conditions of the policy.”
State Commission concurring with the said findings / observations have observed that District Forum has rightly accepted the complaint and hence dismissed the Appeal. As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] that the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577] held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on 8th September, 2022, held that:-
“13. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”
Both State Commission and District Forum have given well-reasoned order and we tend to agree with their findings. We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the State Commission or District Forum, hence the same are upheld. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.