Civil Revision No. 6315 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6315 of 2011 Date of decision. 17.10.2011 Oriental Insurance Co. .... Petitioner Versus Pawan and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Oriental Insurance Company has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.7.2011 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat Public Utilities Services, Jhajjar,(for short 'the Permanent Lok Adalat') whereby the claim of respondent no.1 Pawan has been accepted. Pawan as son and nominee of Satbir Singh had brought a petition under section 22-A read with section 22-C of Legal Services Authorities Act (for short 'the Act') with the prayer for direction to Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., respondent no.1 to make payment of the insured amount to the petitioner. Satbir Singh had taken a policy under the name “Nagrik Suraksha Individual Policy Schedule” vide policy no.261200/48/2010/265 dated 18.05.2009 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Out Civil Revision No. 6315 of 2011 --2-- of it, the insurance in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was for personal accident and of Rs.1,00,000/- was for hospitalization. The said policy was valid upto 17.05.2010. Satbir Singh, the holder of the policy died of snake bite on 23.03.2010. Soon after the snake bite, he was taken to Government Hospital, Dighal, District Jhajjar whereby the doctors gave him first aid and referred him to PGIMS, Rohtak, because they were not having Anti Snake Venum at the hospital. The doctors at PGIMS Rohtak declared Satbir Singh as dead. The claim was resisted by the insurance company claiming that the same was not maintainable as there was no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. It is also claimed that the claimant did not come to the court with clean hands. He is also accused for suppressing the material facts. It is added that Shri Tarun Singh, the Investigator of the insurance company had found Satbir Singh to be suffering from Asthma as was evident from outdoor ticket no.7678 dated 22.3.2010. According to the insurance company, Satbir Singh died on account of asthma. It was also alleged that neither FIR was lodged, nor post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Satbir Singh. It was, therefore, submitted that there was no definite proof of Satbir Singh dying of snake bite. The backside of the outdoor ticket is claimed to have been fabricated by showing that Satbir Singh had suffered snake bite and died because of the same. The other averments of the claimant were denied and the claim petition was prayed to be dismissed. Civil Revision No. 6315 of 2011 --3-- Dr. K.K. Malik, Medical Officer was impleaded as respondent no.2 as he had given treatment to Satbir Singh. On appearance, he had admitted that Satbir Singh came to CHC, Dighal for treatment and that he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak for further treatment and management as Anti Snake Venum was not available at the hospital at Dighal. He has also admitted bringing of Satbir Singh at CHC, Dighal for which outdoor ticket No.7678 dated 22.3.2010 was prepared. Dr. K.K. Malik by way of affidavit has stated that he was on official duty when Satbir Singh son of Rishal Singh was brought to the hospital on 23.3.2010. He was said to have injury marks on his left foot and on inquiry, he was told that he had suffered snake bite. After telling about the medicines administered to him by way of first aid, he has stated that Anti Snake Venum was not available at CHC, Dighal and so he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. The Permanent Lok Adalat made efforts at amicable settlement of the case but failed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat has allowed the petition directing the insurance company to release the insurance claim as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy to Pawan, the nominee. The Permanent Lok Adalat has also ordered payment of interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of claim, if the claim amount was not released within 60 days from the date of the award. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the insurance company has brought this revision petition. Civil Revision No. 6315 of 2011 --4-- I have heard Shri Vinod Chaudhri, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no interest could be allowed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in this case because as per the policy itself company was not liable for payment of any interest on any sum paid/payable under this policy. He has drawn my attention in this regard to a paper where at Sr.No.11, such term is mentioned. According to him, the facts of this case show that there is something fishy in the matter. According to him, Satbir Singh, the policy holder gave his age as 32 years on 18.05.2009. According to him, his nominee Pawan is his son and it is not possible that his son would have attained majority before 17.08.2010, the date of filing of the petition, so as to individually bring the claim petition. He has submitted that a person of the age of 32 years cannot have a child of the age of 18 years at the time of filing the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the policy holder died due to asthma. According to him, a day earlier to 23.3.2010 when he was brought to CHC, Dighal with a complaint of snake bite, he had been brought to CHC Dighal for treatment of asthma. According to him, he has died on account of asthma and not on account of snake bite. He has further submitted that no new medical card was got prepared for the deceased on 23.3.2010. According to him, if Satbir Singh had suffered from some other problem, then a new card should have been issued. He has also submitted that no post mortem examination on the dead Civil Revision No. 6315 of 2011 --5-- body of Satbir Singh has been conducted so as to establish the cause of his death. He has concluded that for all these reasons, the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat is wrong. A photocopy of 'NAGRIK SURAKSHA INDIVIDUAL POLICY SCHEDULE' is placed before me today to show that the person covered, named Satbir Singh, is recorded to be aged 32 years. This document shows that Pawan is the assignee of the insured. Since Pawan has filed the claim petition on 17.8.2010 in his individual capacity, he can be taken as having attained the age of majority before that date. Doubt is claimed to appear on the age of Satbir Singh on 18.5.2009 if he had a son of this age. I have considered this aspect and find that no inference running counter to the case of the claimant could be drawn from this circumstance. If Pawan was of the age of 18 years on 17.8.2010, then Satbir Singh would also have been 33 years of age, if he would have been alive on this date. Mistake of one or two years could be there on the part of rustic people like Satbir Singh in mentioning their age and Satbir Singh could have been a couple of years or so elder to his age mentioned in the policy. It has not been argued before me that the contract of insurance would have been affected if Satbir Singh was aged 35 or 36 years in place of 32 years on the date of taking the policy. Even if it is assumed that Satbir Singh could not have a son of this age, on the date of filing the petition, no difference is made to the case of Pawan. There is no case of the insurance company that Pawan is not the son of Satbir Singh. Had Satbir Singh been of the age of about 33 years, it Civil Revision No. 6315 of 2011 --6-- makes no impact on the claim of his nominee. A doubt raised with regard to the age of the insured and his assignee would not make any difference to the merits of the claim. On 22.3.2010 the insured was given treatment for Asthma, which was prescribed on ticket no. 7678 dated 22.3.2010. The affidavit of Dr. K.K. Malik, respondent no.2. clearly shows that the deceased was brought to CHC, Dighal on 23.3.2010 with the complaint of snake bite and that he had noticed the injury mark on the left foot of the deceased. Mere fact that on 23.3.2010 treatment was prescribed or given on the ticket of the previous day where treatment for asthma was prescribed would not make the conclusion possible that the deceased never suffered from snake bite or that he died due to asthma. It was the duty of the doctor to have insisted for a new card if treatment could not be given for a separate ailment on the ticket of 22.3.2010. The doctor entertained the patient on the same ticket and that makes hardly any difference to the case as the doctor has stated that Satbir Singh had suffered snake bite. There was injury supporting the said plea on the left foot of the deceased, where normally snake bite injuries appear. Asthma for which Satbir Singh was treated as outdoor patient cannot be said to have been in such a form or stage that it would cause his death. Mere failure of the attendants of the deceased to have conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Satbir Singh would not be sufficient for holding that he did not die due to snake bite. It cannot be said that post mortem examination was the only means to hold the death to be due to snake bite and evidence of Civil Revision No. 6315 of 2011 --7-- doctor had no meaning. The Permanent Lok Adalat has taken the most appropriate view in the matter and the same is not liable to be interfered with in this revision. No interest as such has been given by the Permanent Lok Adalat in this case. The interest which is excluded from the liability of the company by condition no.11 is the interest from the date of making of the claim. Here the interest is given on default of the insurance company to satisfy the award within 60 days of the passing of the same. The grant of this interest is not excluded by said terms. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the detailed and well reasoned order of the Permanent Lok Adalat. The revision petition is, consequently, found to have no merit and the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 17.10.2011 JUDGE dinesh