NCDRC NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No.3329 OF 2007 (from the order dated 4.6.07 in Appeal No.698/07 of the State Commission, Hyderabad) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Petitioner Versus Pallamreddy Aruna Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate 22.10.2007 ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In our view,
the finding of the fact recorded by the District Forum as well as the State
Commission does not call for any interference because they have relied upon the
certificate issued by the Police Officer, after investigation, to the effect
that the insured died due to snake
bite. The Village Administrative Officer
has also given a certificate to the same effect, and, also the doctor who
inquired into the cause of
the death of the deceased established that the insured died due
to snake bite. This aspect is dealt
with by the District Forum as under:-
Ex.B1
shows that the first Sri B.V. Sesha Reddy insurance
surveyor and after that Mr. D. Ajay Kumar, Advocate was appointed as surveyor
and after that an independent enquiry by the Mandal
Revenue Officer against the request of the insurer and thereafter Spy Eye
Detectives were appointed. But there is no any logic for appointing subsequent
surveyors and Ex.B1 report also shows that the report of the Dama Ajay Kumar is favourable to
the complainant. So as per the above
said decision the report which is favourable to the
insured shall be prevail and the counsel for the opposite parties also relied
on Ex.B3 certificate. Ex.B3
certificate issued by the Sarpanch incharge of Mudivarthipalem Grama Panchayat. It shows that the insured died due to Cardiac
arrest. Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and
Ex.A8 shows that the cause of the death of the insured is cardiac arrest due to
the snake bite. But Ex.B3 does not show
the cardiac arrest due to snake bite or not.
When Ex.A2 medical officer certificate clearly shows that the insured
died due to snake bite, nothing is found to disbelieve the contents of the Ex.A2, Ex.A3,
Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and Ex.A8. So in view of
it, Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are no way helpful to establish the
case of the opposite parties that the insured death is natural one.
However, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Investigation Report, and submitted that
there is no other evidence on record to establish that the insured died because of the snake bite. In our view, the Investigation Report is
based upon the appreciation of evidence collected by the Investigator. There is no reason to doubt the Police
investigation or the say of the Medical Officer.
The learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without conducting post-mortem,
the doctor cannot say, by mere look at the dead body, that the person has died because of the snake
bite. In our view, the doctor can, on taking into consideration the
symptoms/cause of the snake bite, easily
certify or arrive at the conclusion that
person died because of the poison.
Even a layman can say the same thing some times.
The learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in terms of the Policy,
conduct of post -mortem is a must. In our
view, in a small village, when a person dies because of snake bite, they would
not wait for post-mortem or would not remove the dead body to the Civil
Hospital which is far off. Hence, there is no substance in this revision
petition and it is dismissed.
J.
(M.B.
SHAH)
PRESIDENT
(RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO)
MEMBER
SG/16