Social Icons

Monday, November 26, 2012

DEATH DUE TO NEGLIGENT ACT OF A DOCTOR IS AN ACCIDENT – LIC TO PAY ACCIDENTAL DEATH BENEFITS


Does the negligent or rash act of a doctor which causes the death of his patient immediately, comes within the parameters of an accident?



The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)  in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Narender Singh  observed:



Death of a patient due to rash and negligent act of a doctor is an accident, making the victim entitled to the accidental death benefits from his or her insurer. The LIC was ordered to pay the accidental death benefits to the husband of the insured, who had died while being operated upon. The NCDRC held “..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”.



The LIC had denied the accidental benefits to the complainant saying his wife death during the surgery was not an accident.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

WHETHER A STUDENT IS A CONSUMER?


The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had held that an education board is not a service provider and a student writing an exam is not a consumer.


The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in University of Delhi Vs Mohd. A.M Abel Karim held:


“The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its “services” to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbided sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis- -vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination. The Act does not intend to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer – scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service – provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. The Board is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board”.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

END NOTES


END NOTES

1
University of Delhi Vs Mohd. A.M Abel Karim
CDJ 2012 (Cons.) Case No.379
2
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Narender Singh
CDJ 2012 (Cons.) Case No.253



Prepared by: S. Hemanth