Central Mumbai Consumer Forum Rejects Brother's Claim for Farmer Insurance
The Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed a complaint filed by a Solapur resident seeking compensation for his brother's accidental death under the Maharashtra government's Farmers Personal Accidental Insurance Scheme.
The commission, comprising President Samindara Surve and Member Sanjay S. Jagdale, rejected the claim of Rs 1 lakh against Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. on the grounds that a deceased farmer's brother does not fall within the recognised category of beneficiaries entitled to receive compensation under the scheme.
The complaint was filed by Rahul Gopichand Patil, the brother and legal heir of late Sagar Gopichand Patil. Sagar, a registered farmer covered under the state insurance scheme, died in a motorcycle accident at Lamboti village on May 24, 2011. The Maharashtra government had paid the premium for the policy, with Future Generali entrusted to implement it.
Rahul Patil stated that he collected the required documents and submitted the claim through the local Talathi. It was verified by the Taluka Krishi Adhikari and sent to the insurer via an insurance broker. After receiving no sanction or rejection, Patil issued a legal notice in April 2019 and approached the consumer commission seeking Rs 1 lakh along with 15 per cent interest, Rs 50,000 in punitive damages, and Rs 20,000 for legal expenses.
Future Generali opposed the complaint, arguing that the claim was not payable under the tripartite agreement governing the scheme. The insurer also raised objections regarding the deceased's driving licence and manner of driving.
While the commission upheld Patil's legal standing to file the complaint as an heir, it ruled that he held no substantive entitlement to the payout. Examining the tripartite agreement, the commission noted that the specified hierarchy of beneficiaries includes only the spouse, unmarried daughter, mother, sons, grandchildren, and married daughter of the deceased farmer.
Noting that a brother is not included in the list, the commission stated it could not expand the scope of the government scheme to add new categories. It concluded that the insurer's rejection of the claim did not constitute a deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice.
