National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Seema vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 16 April, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2393 OF 2012 (From the order dated 29.02.2012 in First Appeal No. 140 of 2009 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) Seema w/o late Mr. Rajesh Mehta, r/o House No. N.N. 8, Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar City Petitioner-Complainant Versus 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office-III, 29, Atam Nagar, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, Though its Sr. Divisional Manager Respondent No. 1- OP-1 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office-II, 361000, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar- 144003 Through its Sr. Divisional Manager Respondent No. 2- OP-2 BEFORE HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Vikas Nagpal, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Mohan Babu Agrawal, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 16th APRIL 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 29.2.2012, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 140 of 2009, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Mrs. Seema, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 11.12.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, in complaint no. 10 of 2008, allowing the said complaint, was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Rajesh Mehta, husband of complainant/petitioner had taken individual personal accident insurance policy from the respondent/opposite party/insurance company, covering risk on his life for ` 1 lakh, on his wife, Seema for ` 2 lakhs and on his two children for ` 50,000/- each. The proposal form was filled by Rajesh Mehta on 22.12.2003. It has been stated that the said Rajesh Mehta was found dead under mysterious circumstances near Chaheru bridge on Jalandhar-Phagwara G.T. Road by a police patrolling party, for which FIR No. 32 dated 07.05.2003 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara and post-mortem examination was also conducted. The inquest report conducted under section 174 Cr.P.C. revealed that cause of death was due to intake of alcohol and wound mark (injury) was found on his dead body, as per the post-mortem report. The report from the Chemical Examiner, Govt. of Punjab, Patiala revealed that aluminium phosphide was detected in the liver, spleen and kidney of the deceased. In the sample of blood, taken from the body of Rajesh Mehta, aluminium phosphide was found. The Insurance company repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 21.05.2004, saying that the claim was not payable under the terms and conditions of the policy as Rajesh Mehta was under influence of intoxicating drugs, at the time of his death. The consumer complaint in question was then filed before the District Forum, claiming payment of ` 1 lakh alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of ` 50,000/- and ` 10,000/- for cost of litigation. In their reply, before the District Forum, mention was made about exception 5 in the conditions of insurance policy and it was stated that since the death resulted, because of taking poisonous substance aluminium phosphide, the claim was not covered by the insurance policy. However, the District Forum, after taking into account, the evidence of the parties allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party to pay insurance claim of ` 1 lakh alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of final repudiation till realisation and ` 4,000/- as compensation, on account of deficiency in service and ` 1,000/-, as cost of litigation. An appeal was filed against this order before the State Commission, which was accepted and the order of the District Forum was set aside. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel has drawn attention to the written reply, filed by the respondent/opposite party before the District Forum, saying that from the said reply, it was clear that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was due to intake of alcohol, whereas as per the report of Chemical Examiner, Aluminium Phosphide was detected in various parts of the body of the deceased. The District Forum had come to the right conclusion saying that the Insurance Company had not been able to produce cogent and convincing evidence to establish death by suicide. Since the mystery behind the death of the deceased had not been solved by police investigation or by evidence produced by the Insurance Company, the claim was payable. The learned counsel stated that in the impugned order, the State Commission had not carried out a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the case was fully covered under exception 5 of the terms and conditions of the policy in question. It had been clearly established from the report of Chemical Examiner that the deceased had died after consuming poisonous substance and hence, it could not be stated to be death by accident. The impugned order was in accordance with law and should be upheld. 5. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. 6. A perusal of the material on record makes it very clear that the report of Chemical Examiner, Govt. of Punjab reveals that Aluminium Phosphide insecticide was found in the stomach and parts of intestines of deceased. It is also stated in the report that phosphine, a constituent of Aluminium Phosphide was found in the parts of liver, spleen, kidney and sample of blood. The result of the report of Chemical Examiner to Govt. of Punjab has been stated to be as follows- Aluminium Phosphide insecticides detected in the contents of exhibit I. Phosphine, a constituent of aluminium phosphide detected in the contents of exhibits II and III. No poison detected in the contents of exhibit IV. 7. Exhibit I was a jar containing stomach and parts of intestine, exhibit II contained parts of liver, spleen and half of each kidney, exhibit III contained sample of blood, whereas exhibit IV had saturated solution of common salt. 8. It is clear from the report of the Chemical Examiner that the deceased died due to intake of Aluminium Phosphide, which is a poisonous substance. The report of the post-mortem examination stated that cause of death will be known from the report of the Chemical Examiner. The State Commission have, therefore, rightly concluded that it was a clear-cut case of suicide, which bars the claim for insurance. We do not find any reasons to differ with the well-reasoned findings of the State Commission. We do not agree with the findings of the District Forum that the respondent/opposite party had failed to prove any mental depression etc. of the deceased which could have led him to commit suicide. A person can commit suicide even if he is not suffering from any mental depression or psychological disorder. In the reply, filed by the respondent/opposite party, they stated that the complainant submitted the report of the Chemical Examiner on 05.06.2007 despite writing letters to them on 22.12.2003 and 16.04.2004. 9. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission, which may merit interference at the revisional stage. The petition is, therefore, without any force and the same is ordered to be dismissed. The order passed by the State Commission is confirmed and consequently, the consumer complaint in question stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ..
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER PSM