Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Omwati & Ors. on 17 August, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 531/2008
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.S.P.Jain, Advocate
versus
OMWATI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accident claim case (Suit No.215/2004) was instituted on
19.08.2004 by the first to fifth respondents (collectively, the
claimants) seeking compensation on account of death of Sahib Singh
due to injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred
on 29.10.2002 involving motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-4SY-
3404, admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant
insurance company (insurer).
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal), by
judgment dated 01.03.2008, upheld the said claim and awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs.5,56,814/- fastening the liability on the
insurer with interest levied at seven per cent (7%) per annum.
3. The insurer filed this appeal questioning the finding returned by
the tribunal as to the death being on account of the injuries suffered in
the motor vehicular accident. It is noted that the accident had occurred
on 29.10.2002 and the deceased was taken to GTB hospital where he
remained under treatment till discharge on 03.11.2002. The evidence
would show that on account of some complications he was re-admitted
to the hospital on 02.12.2002 and died during indoor treatment on
19.12.2002. It does appear that the death certificate indicates chronic
renal failure and urenic encephalopathy to be the immediate cause of
death.
4. The tribunal, however, rejected the plea of the insurer about
there being no nexus between the injuries suffered in the accident and
the death, based on the opinion given by Dr. Vipin Gupta (R3W2) and
observed that though the deceased may have been an old case of
polycystic kidney disease, the possibility of the renal failure having
been triggered by the medicines administered during the treatment on
account of injuries could not be ruled out.
5. The evidence of R3W2, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, was apparently nothing but an opinion which was not based on
examination of the deceased at any stage or of his medical records.
This opinion has been rendered only on the basis of MLC
(Ex.R3W1/D) and, therefore, does not deserve to be acted upon. The
insurance company had the opportunity and could have summoned the
doctors who would have treated the deceased in the hospital to derive
more reliable opinion. Having regard to the close proximity of the
two periods of hospitalization and the death in relation to the episode
of accident in which injuries were sustained, this court finds no good
reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the tribunal.
6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award has
already been satisfied by requisite payment to the claimants. If there is
any deficiency, the claimants are at liberty to take out appropriate
proceedings before the tribunal.
8. The statutory amount be refunded to the appellant insurance
company.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 17, 2017
vk
