SHAHNAZ vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

THE short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the injury suffered by an insured due to dog bite and his subsequent death could be considered as due to an accident within the meaning of the clause bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by outward violent and visible for payment of money due under the policy.

FOR the sake of convenience, the parties in this order are referred to according to their position in the complaint filed before the District Forum. This appeal is by the complainant challenging the order of the District Forum dismissing her complaint.

THE facts in this case are as follows: The complainants husband had obtained a Janata Personal Accident Insurance policy from the opposite party (for short, ''O.P.'') for the period from 31.7.2001 to 30.7.2002. The assured sum under the policy is Rs. 50,000. The insured suffered serious injury to his left leg due to a dog bite while driving an autorickshaw. He was admitted to a hospital and ultimately he died due to Acute Cordio Respiratory Arrest Secondary to Rabies with PVS in left leg. After the death of the insured, the complainant being the nominee made a claim before the O.P. for payment of money due under the policy. The claim was repudiated by the O.P. on the ground that the death of the insured was not due to any accident. Aggrieved by this repudiation, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint accepting the defence put forth by the O.P. This order of the District Forum is under challenge by the complainant in this appeal.

THE learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the dog bite is an accident and the consequent death of the insured is a death due to the accident and, therefore, the O.P. was not right in repudiating the claim. As per the terms of the policy if the insured sustains any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by outward violent and visible means then the O.P. is liable to pay the amount due under the policy. In the instant case it is not the case of the O.P. that there was no dog bite. Further, the death of the insured was on account of Acute Cordio Respiratory Arrest Secondary to Rabies with PVS in left leg. Dog bite in a public place is an accident caused by violent and visible means. Therefore, in our view, the O.P. cannot avoid its liability of paying the amount due under the policy. In this view of the matter, the District Forum was not right in holding that the complainant failed to show that the insured sustained bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by outward violent and visible means. Dog bite on a road irrespective of the fact whether the insured was driving an autorickshaw or not is an accident caused by outward violent and visible means. Therefore, in our view, the complainant is entitled for payment of money due under the policy. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is to be allowed.

IN the result, we pass the following order: (1) The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. (2) The complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum is allowed. The O.P. is directed to pay the sum assured under the policy to the complainant with all other benefits with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the complaint filed before the District Forum till the date of realization. (3) Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed. -