State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Ltd., ... vs Smt. Suman Chugh Wife Of Sh. Anil Kumar, ... on 3 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.879 of 2011 Date of Institution: 29.06.2011 Date of Decision: 03.02.2012 National Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office-1, Outer Quillar Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager (through its Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. Appellant (OP) Versus Smt. Suman Chugh wife of Sh. Anil Kumar, Resident of House No.848/8, Dhobi Mohalla, Rohtak. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Ms. Jaimini Tiwari, Advocate for appellant. Shri N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Rohtak whereby complaint bearing No.131/2007 filed by complainant (respondent herein) against the appellant-opposite party seeking insurable benefits on account of death of her husband, was accepted by granting following relief:-
.In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions it is observed that the respondent shall pay the complainant all the benefits qua JPA policy No.420600/47/51/96/114 dated 20.01.1997 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death of life assured i.e. 05.09.2003 till its actual realization. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses which the complainant has to bear for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
Anil Kumar-husband of the complainant (respondent herein) had obtained a J.P.A. policy from the appellant-opposite party for Rs.50,000/-. On 05.09.2003 the life assured Anil Kumar died due to accidental fire from his licensed revolver while cleaning the barrel of the same. D.D.R. No.23 dated 05.09.2003 was recorded in Police Station Model Town, Rohtak.
Postmortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 06.09.2003. Complainant submitted claim with the opposite party with respect to the Insurance Policy obtained by deceased but the same was not settled by the opposite party till 18.12.2006. A legal notice dated 01.02.2007 was served upon the opposite party and thereafter the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the insurable benefits.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement stating therein that complainants claim was repudiated vide letter dated 21.02.2007 because it was a suicidal death in view of the opinion of Dr. R.K. Chaudhary, MBBS, MS (Surgery). Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service on its part, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order. Hence, this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that complainants claim was rightly repudiated being a suicidal death of the life assured in view of the Postmortem Report Annexure A-2 (Ex.R4) as well as the opinion given by Dr. R.K. Chowdhary, Annexure A-3 (Ex.R7). Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that in view of Clause 4 of the Insurance Policy, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefit on account of death of the life assured from intentional self injury. Reference was made to case law settled in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus NIRMALA MEENA, I(2010) CPJ 162 (NC).
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has argued that complainants claim was not settled by the opposite party for a long period of more than three years. Learned counsel for the complainant further contended that repudiation letter dated 21.02.2007 was not received by the complainant till the filing of the complaint on 01.03.2007 whereas the claim was submitted in 2003.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is attractive. So far as the deficiency on the part of the appellant-opposite party for delaying the repudiation of complainants claim is concerned, the complaint filed by the complaint is time barred. Undisputedly, the life assured died on 05.09.2003 and claim was submitted with the opposite party in the year 2003 but the instant complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum on 01.03.2007 i.e. more than three years whereas a period of two years has been prescribed for filing complaint in view of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 from the date of cause of action which in the instant case had accrued to the complainant when claim was submitted by her with the opposite party after the death of her husband in the on 05.09.2003. Thus, complainants claim on this count is not acceptable.
The next question for consideration before us is that as per the opinion of Dr.R.K. Chowdhrary vide Ex.R-7 the possibility of this firearm injury being caused by suicide can not be ruled out. The relevant part of Ex.R-7 is as under:-
1. The appearance of wound of entry, its situation and that of wound of exit shows that the firearm bullet hit the Right Temple from very close distance and almost horizontally. In view of this fact it is least likely that the firearm weapon accidentally went off during its cleaning.
2. The possibility of this firearm injury being caused by suicide can not be ruled out.
The contents of the opinion given by Dr. R.K. Chowdhary are attracted to the facts of case relied upon by the appellant in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus NIRMALA MEENA (Supra), wherein Hoble National Consumer Commission held not liable the Insurance Company to pay any insurable benefits to the claimant with the following observation:-
..the post-mortem report clearly indicates that the bullet has pierced through the right temporal region from a close range and it is most improbable that anybody would raise the level of his weapon in the process of its cleaning upon the level of temporal region. At the most, he may being it close to his eyes to ascertain whether the barrel of the revolver contains any deposit or foreign material or that the holes of the cartridge case contained any corrugation and in that process a trained Police Inspector is supposed to keep the barrel of the revolver pointing opposite to his body and even if it is pointed towards him, any accidental fire would pierce through his eyes or the neck and in no case can such accidental fire enter at the deviation of 90 degrees to the temporal region. We also notice that neither the police report nor any other evidence mention about the existence of any cleaning material at the site of the incident. Thus, it was most improbable that the bullet hit the Life Assured at the temporal region accidentally in the process of its cleaning.
The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to NIRMALA MEENAs case (Supra) because the observation made by the Honble National Commission are at par with the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any insurable benefits being it a suicidal case of her husband. Hence, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be allowed to sustain.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 03.02.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member