w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another v/s Challa Yadamma

    Revision Petition No. 1682 of 2018 in Appeal No. 248 of 2017

    Decided On, 13 July 2018

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioners: Meghna Sankhla, Advocate. For the Respondent: Challa Yadamma, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Late Shri C. Mohan Reddy, husband of the complainant had obtained four insurance policies from the petitioner. He expired on 9.5.2014, allegedly due to an electric shock suffered from the water heater in his bathroom. He was taken to Kakatiya hospital, where he was declared bro

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ught dead and no post-mortem on his dead body was conducted. The claims lodged by the complainant having not been paid, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, who submitted that neither any FIR nor any post mortem report to prove an accidental death had been submitted.

3. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant/ respondent, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

4. The only question involved in this petition is as to whether the deceased had died due to electric shock or not. It is true that no post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted and no FIR was lodged. That however, would not be fatal to the case of the complainant since there can be no question of any FIR if somebody dies on account of an electric shock suffered at his residence. There is no requirement of subjecting the dead body to a post mortem when no foul play is suspected. A perusal of the death certified issued by Kakatiya hospital on 9.5.2014, the date on which the deceased died, would show that when his dead body was taken to the hospital, it was informed that he had suffered an electric shock. I am in agreement with the State commission that there could be no reason for the family members of the deceased to make a false statement to the hospital, where they had taken him immediately after electric shock was suffered by the deceased. At that time they could not even be sure as to whether he had died or was alive. Their attempt would be to somehow keep him alive. Therefore, it is natural for them to give correct facts to the hospital where he is taken by them. Hence, there could be no reason for them to make a false statement to the hospital, alleging that the deceased had suffered electric shock.

5. I am therefore, satisfied that the deceased had actually died on account of having suffered an electric shock. It can hardly be disputed that the death on account of the suffering from an electric shock would be an accidental death. Therefore, the claims were clearly payable under the insurance policies, which the deceased had taken in his lifetime. The concurrent view taken by the fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

The revision petition is therefore dismissed.
O R