NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2056 OF 2012
(From the order dated 30.01.2012 in First Appeal No. 518 of 2008 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula )
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Having its Central Office at ‘Yogakshema’
Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai
& its Co. Legal Cell, Delhi Office
At H-39, New Asiatic Building
IInd Floor, Back Side
Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001 ... Petitioner
Versus
Shri Narender Singh
S/o Sh. Hazari Lal
R/o VPO Akawali, Tehsil Tohana,
District Fatehabad (Haryana) … Respondent
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner
|
: Mr. Anoop K. Kaushal, Advocate
|
DATED: 2nd July, 2012
O R D E R
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Does the negligent or rash act of a doctor which causes the death of his patient immediately, come within the parameters of an accident? Both the forasbelow have come to the conclusion that it tantamounts to an accident. Hence, this revision petition.
2. The relevant facts that will be required to be noticed lie within a short compass. Smt. Soma Rani @ Kiran, since deceased, wife of the complainant,Shri Narender Singh obtained Life Insurance Policy from the petitioner-Life Insurance Corporation of India on 28.5.2003 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with accidental benefits. Smt. Soma Rani @ Kiran suffered problem of the blockage of her tubes i.e. inner part of female for conceiving pregnancy. She was advised test and operation for the same. She was taken to Dr. Satish Jhunthra and Dr. Vinita Jhunthra. This is an admitted fact that Smt. Soma Rani @ Kirandied inside the operation theatre. It is alleged that she died due to some wrong treatment given by the above said doctors, FIR was lodged and the doctors were prosecuted for offence under Section 304A I.P.C. which is still pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. The complainant filed a complaint against LIC before the District Forum and District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant with cost of Rs.1,000/- and directed the opposite parties to pay the amount of accidental benefits under the policy for Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 11.12.2006 till payment. The State Commission dismissed the appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has invited my attention towards the complaint under Section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed before the District Consumer Forum, Fatehabad. In para 7, the following averments were made:-
“That to save money Dr. Satish Jhuthra & Vinita Jhuthra did not arrange for any doctor for giving Anesthesia before operation rather made the treatment in such a wrong and negligent manner due to which the wife of the applicant died. The postmartem of the wife applicant was conducted on 17.05.2006 at PGIMS, Rohtak and the report came from DFSL Madhuban and Chemical Exam. Report came from Karnal and Pathalogical report came from Rohtak.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this clearly goes to show that the deceased died due to lack of oxygen. He vehemently argued that in every case of death, doctor will be held liable in case the verdicts of both the foras are to be accepted. He contended that the doctors very fairly after getting the signatures of the deceased conducted the above said operation without having mens rea. He also argued that death of Smt. Soma Rani @ Kiran did not occur due to any accident caused by any outward, violent and visible means, as such the above said treatment does not come within the ambit of “accident”. He also argued that basic sum assured with bonus stands already paid to the respondent in the sum of Rs.54,350/- but double accident benefits stand declined by the petitioner for the above said reasons.
5. All these arguments are devoid of force. A criminal case under Section 304-A is pending against the doctors. A criminal case crops up by a negligent and rash act. Mens rea is not required. It must be borne in mind that degree in criminal case regarding negligence or rashness is much higher than it is required for civil cases.
6. Let us now turn to the dictionary meaning of the word ‘accident’. The word ‘accident’ is derived from the Latin verb accidere, signifying “fall upon, befall, happen, chance, in its most commonly accepted meaning”. According to Webster’s dictionary, ‘accident’ means (1) an unfortunate incident that happens in unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury (2) A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury. According to free online dictionary, ‘accident’ means an unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm’ car accidents on icy roads. According to business dictionary, ‘accident’ means ‘in general, an unplanned, unexpected, and undesigned (not purposefully caused) event which occurs suddenly and causes (1) injury or….. According to Oxford dictionary, ‘accident’ means a thing that happens, an event, an event that is without apparent cause or unexpected; an unfortunate event, esp. one causing injury or damage, Chance, fortune, an unfavourable symptom, a casual appearance or effect, an irregularity in the landscape.
7. It answers all the questions posed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Again, learned State Commission was pleased to hold ‘we do not subscribe to the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties. Admittedly, the life assured died during an operation by the treating doctors for the treatment of her ‘tubes’. Thus, the injury to the life assured was an accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and therefore, the Life Insurance Corporation of India cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the accidental benefits to the complainant.’
9. Last but not the least, some distinction has to be drawn between the accidental death and natural or normal death. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not pick up the conflict with para 7 of the complaint noted above. The absence of antitheist before the operation puts the case of the complainant in an impregnable position. Without calling the antitheist the above said two doctors should not have treated the patient at all. This itself speaks deficiency in service on the part of the doctors as well as negligence and rashness.
10. The revision petition is lame of strength and therefore, the same is dismissed.
..…………………Sd/-…………
( J. M. MALIK, J.)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Naresh/reserved
