Skip to main content

Insurer can’t deny claim citing lack of post-mortem: Consumer forum

A consumer forum has held that the absence of a post-mortem report cannot be a ground for repudiation of an accidental death insurance claim in cases where the police are sure about the cause of death and there is no confusion.

On Wednesday, the forum directed New India Assurance to pay the widow of a 45-year-old man who died of snake bite in 2008 the insured amount of Rs 5 lakh, along with a compensation of Rs 1.05 lakh. Holding the company guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice, the forum said, "Depending upon the situation and circumstances and reports of the medical officer, the hospital as well as the police, the claim should have been sanctioned on humanitarian grounds. There is no proof to show that there was any mischief or mala fide intention of the complainant in demanding the claim."

The forum rejected the insurance company's defence that it was not in the domain of the police to conclude the cause of death and that the job was of medical doctors, and that despite the advice of doctors, the woman—Dombivli resident Usha Bhoir—had failed to allow the post-mortem.

"The police are also a government and responsible investigative authority. As they were sure about accidental death, they did not go for post-mortem. So, merely saying that a post-mortem was not done and hence claim is repudiated is unfair," the forum said.

The forum observed that Bhoir could not have insisted on a post-mortem and the final authority in the matter was the police. It pointed out that the police had recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted a panchnama and finally on July 10, 2008, had submitted a summary report to the sub-divisional magistrate, stating that the death was accidental.

Bhoir's husband Ashok had taken membership of a luxury club in Prabhadevi in 2007. The club had a tie-up with the insurance company and as per rules insured its members. In her complaint to the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in 2012, Bhoir said that on June 22, 2008, at 3pm, her husband had gone into the cattle shed on their premises, where he was bitten by a snake hidden in the grass. Ashok was taken to hospital, where at 9.15pm he suffered cardio-respiratory failure due to poisoning and died.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Mumbai/Insurer-cant-deny-claim-citing-lack-of-post-mortem-Consumer-forum/articleshow/35739014.cms

Comment: This one appears a little irregular. It is my opinion that Post-Mortem report is necessary if it is possible to do so as it was here. The police cannot make assumptions where death is not of natural causes.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...