State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Preeti & Ors. vs Lic Of India on 10 November, 2009
APPEAL NO: 1183/2005 1. Smt. Preeti w/o Lt.Sh.Mukesh Dave, Sawaria colony, Nimbahera At present r/o " Jyoti Deep " House no. 1B/20 Segwa Housing Board Colony, Chittorgarh. 2. Pranjam s/o Lt.Sh.Mukesh Dave, Sawaria colony, Nimbahera At present r/o " Jyoti Deep " House no. 1B/20 Segwa Housing Board Colony, Chittorgarh. 3. Shubham s/o Lt.Sh.Mukesh Dave, Sawaria colony, Nimbahera At present r/o " Jyoti Deep " House no. 1B/20 Segwa Housing Board Colony, Chittorgarh. Complainants-appellants Vs. 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through Sr. Divisional Manager Patel Circle, Udaipur. 2. Br.Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Br. Adarsh Colony, Nimbahera. Opposite parties-respondents 2 10.11.09 Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethia-Member
Mr.Manish Mathur counsel for the appellants Mr.Ram Kalyan Sharma counsel for the respondents BY THE STATE COMMISSION This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against order dated 29.3.05 passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh in complaint no. 329/2004 by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.
2. It arises in the following circumstances-
That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum,Chittorgarh on 25.11.04 inter alia stating that husband of complainant appellant no.1 and father of complainant appellants no. 2 & 3 Mukesh Dave now deceased had taken LIC policy from the respondents for a sum of Rs.3 lacs bearing policy no.183062520 on 14.2.02 . It was further stated in the complaint that on 5.2.03 the deceased had taken some poisonous thing by mistake as 3 a result of which he had died on 5.2.03 and the report of the incident was lodged with the Police Station, Nimbahera bearing mug FIR no. 2/2003 on 6.2.03 and during the investigation postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and the police after investigation had submitted report to SDM, Nimbahera stating that the death of the deceased had taken place suddenly and was vdky eksSrA It was further stated in the complaint that after the death of the deceased claim was preferred by the complainant appellant no.1 being the wife and nominee of the deceased before the office of the respondents but that claim was repudiated by the respondents through letter dated 23.9.03 on the ground that since the deceased had committed suicide within one year of the issuance of the policy, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the policy claim was not payable. Thereafter the present complaint was filed.
A reply was filed on behalf of the respondents through affidavit of Mr.R.K.Gupta on 17.1.05 and they have taken the same pleas which were taken by them in the repudiation letter dated 23.9.03. Apart from that it was stated in the reply that about the incident a report was lodged by Mr. Rajesh, the brother of the deceased with the Police Station, Nimbahera on 6.2.03 in which it was stated that on 2.2.03 the deceased had taken some poisonous thing and he was got admitted in the hospital at Nimbahera and from Nimbahera hospital, he was shifted to the hospital situated at Chittorgarh and 4 thereafter he was again shifted to Mah.Bhupal Govt. Hospital at Udaipur on 4.2.03 where he had died on 5.2.03 . It was further stated in the reply that since as per report of Rajesh, the brother of the deceased ,it was clear that the deceased had taken poisonous thing because of depression or frustration, meaning thereby he had taken poisonous thing with intention to commit suicide and even in the findings recorded by the police under section 174 CRPC ( Mug FIR no. 2/2003 ) the fact that the deceased had taken some poisonous thing was mentioned and thus from the evidence on record it is proved that the deceased had committed suicide and it was prayed that claim of the complainants was rightly repudiated by the respondents and complaint be dismissed .
After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Chittorgarh through impugned order dated 29.3.05 had dismissed the complaint inter alia holding-
(i) That in the report which was lodged by Rajesh with the Police Station Nimbahera on 6.2.03 upon which a mug FIR bearing no. 2/2003 was registered, the fact that the decesed had taken poisonous thing is well established.
(ii) That no doubt the viscera was sent for chemical examination and the viscera report was not 5 received so far and the death of the deceased could not be said to be a sudden death and further since he had taken poisonous thing, therefore, the death of the deceased would be treated as suicidal death and not accidental one.
(iii) That the respondents were justified in repudiating the claim of the complainants appellants.
Aggrieved from the said order dated 29.3.05 passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh this appeal has been filed by the complainants appellants.
3. In this appeal, the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants complainants is that no doubt in the report lodged by Rajesh, the brother of the deceased, it was mentioned that the deceased had taken some poisonous thing but the police after investigation of mug FIR bearing no. 2/2003 which was lodged on the basis of the report of Rajesh, had come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was accidental one, and hence, repudiation of claim of the complainants appellants by the respondents was wholly illegal and arbitrary and in view of this the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the death of the deceased was treated as suicidal one could not be sustained and liable to the quashed and set aside as they suffer from basic infirmity, illegality and perversity and it was prayed that appeal be allowed.
64. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order of the District Forum.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as for the respondents and have gone through the entire materials available on record.
6. There is no dispute on the point that the deceased had taken LIC policy from the respondents for a sum of Rs.3 lacs bearing policy no.183062520 on 14.2.02 .
7. There is also no dispute on the point that no doubt in the complaint the complainants appellants had mentioned that the deceased had taken some poisonous thing by mistake on 5.2.03 but the fact is that he had taken poisonous thing on 2.2.03 and he was got admitted in the hospital at Nimbahera and from Nimbahera hospital, he was shifted to the hospital situated at Chittorgarh and thereafter he was again shifted to Mah.Bhupal Govt. Hospital at Udaipur on 4.2.03 where he had died on 5.2.03 and thereafter a report was lodged on 6.2.03 by the brother of the deceased Mr.Rajesh with the Police Station, Nimbahera where mug FIR no. 2/2003 under section 174 CRPC was registered and investigation was started.
8. There is no dispute on the point that in that report it was clearly mentioned that the deceased had taken some poisonous thing and the deceased had died on 5.2.03 while he was being 7 admitted in the Mah.Bhupal Govt. Hospital at Udaipur.
9. There is also no dispute on the point that the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted on 6.2.03 where the cause of the death of the deceased was assigned as follows -
" Opinion- opinion regarding cause of death will be given after receiving the report of chemical examination for which above mentioned visceras are preserved and sealed."
10. There is no dispute on the point that in the postmortem report dated 6.2.03 it was specifically mentioned that -^^ekSr tgjhyh oLrq [kkus ls gksukA**
11. There is also no dispute on the point that though viscera was sent for chemical examination but the report had not been received so far nor had been produced by any one before the District Forum or before this Commission.
12. There is no dispute on the point that the deceased was admitted in the Mah. Bhupal Govt. Hospital, Udaipur on 4.2.03 and in the relevant column it was mentioned that it was a case of EDB poisoning as the deceased had taken small ampoule of EDB poison and in the bed head ticket of that hospital it was also mentioned that the deceased was conscious even upto 4.2.03 and was gasping.
813. There is no dispute on the point that after investigation of the case in mug FIR no. 2/2003 the Police Station, Nimbahera had submitted a report to SDM, Nimbahera and had come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was a sudden death and that information was based on the basis of the statements recorded during investigation including the statement of the complainant appellant no.1, the wife of the deceased.
14. There is no dispute on the point that the claim of the above mentioned policy was repudiated by the respondents through letter dated 23.9.03 on the grounds mentioned therein, in other words, the case of the respondents was that the deceased had taken poisonous thing with intention to commit suicide and ultimately he had died on 5.2.03 and thus the death of the deceased was suicidal one.
15. Thus, in the facts and circumstances just narrated above, the question for consideration is whether the findings recorded by the District Forum by which complaint of the complainants appellants was dismissed could be sustained or not and whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainants appellants by the respondents was justified or not.
16. It may be stated here that in this case the fact that the deceased had taken some poisonous thing on 2.2.03 could not be in dispute as for that there is ample evidence on record to prove that fact and that fact is found mentioned in the report lodged by Rajesh with the Police Station, Nimbahera on 9 6.2.03 and further that fact is also found in the postmortem report dated 6.2.03 and in the bed head ticket dated 4.2.03 of the Govt. Hospital, Udaipur and even that fact is found mentioned in the final report submitted by the Police Station, Nimbahera during investigation under section 174 CRPC in respect of mug FIR no. 2/2003.
17. Not only this, during investigation the police had recorded some statements including the statement of Preeti, complainant appellant no.1, the wife of the deceased on 27.5.03 in which she had stated that the deceased had said to her that he had taken some poisonous thing, but for what purposes he had taken that poisonous thing, he had not stated to her.
18. Thus, from the above evidence it is well established that the deceased had first taken some poisonous thing on 2.2.03 and thereafter he was got admitted in the hospital at Nimbahera and from Nimbahera hospital, he was shifted to the hospital situated at Chittorgarh and thereafter he was again shifted to Mah.Bhupal Govt. Hospital at Udaipur on 4.2.03 and ultimately he had died on 5.2.03 in the hospital because of taking some poisonous thing.
19. The another question for consideration is whether the above evidence is sufficient to hold that the deceased had committed suicide or not.
1020. Further the police was put on motion when the police had received a report on 6.2.03 which was lodged by Rajesh, the brother of the deceased with the Police Station, Nimbahera on 6.2.03 and in that report it was clearly mentioned that the deceased had taken some poisonous thing because of personal problem and frustration in life , therefore, from that point of view also it could be inferred that he had taken poisonous thing with intention to commit suicide.
21. The learned counsel for the complainants appellants has placed reliance on the findings recorded by the police in mug FIR no. 2/2003 where the police had come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was a sudden death and therefore, the learned counsel for the complainants appellants has drawn inferrence from that findings that the death of the deceased was accidental one and not suicidal one.
22. It may be stated here that if the findings recorded by the police after investigation in mug FIR no. 2/2003 are read as a whole, they clearly reflect that the deceased had taken poisonous thing and that was taken by him not by mistake and had resulted in the death of the deceased and thus the police had come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was a sudden death.
23. In our considered opinion, when the fact that the deceased had taken some poisonous thing is well proved and when from the report lodged by Rajesh, the brother of the deceased with the Police Station, Nimbahera, it is also clear 11 that the deceased had taken poisonous thing because of some personal problems and frustration in life and further when the deceased had taken poisonous thing not by mistake, therefore, presumption would be drawn that the deceased had committed suicide and the death of the deceased could not be treated as accidental one.
24. In this respect something should be said about suicide and its causes.
25. The constant fact of wailing and weaping in one of the important symptoms of an intention to commit suicide as mentioned by George W. Brown and Tirril Harris in this book " Social Origins of Depression."
26. Suicide is intentionally taking of one's life. In other words suicide is the initiation of an act leading to one's own death. Conventional wisdom decrees that suicide is the escape route for the abnormal. A person who commits suicide, can adopt different methods in committing sicide, for example, use of fire arms, poisioning specially by drugs, over drugs, hanging, inhalation of gas etc. etc.
27. Normally one would not commit suicide unless there are strong and compelling reasons for it. Thus, ordinarily there has to be a very pressing motive behind every case of suicide. That is why emphasis should be made as to why a person commits suicide and the society should try to understand the causes behind committing suicide.
1228. Apart from that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Rathinam Vs. Union of India ( AIR 1994 Supreme Court page 1844 ) had enumerated the causes responsible for committing suicide in the following manner-
" Various social forces like the economy religion and socio-economic status are responsible for suicides. There are various theories of suicide, to wit, sociological, psychological, biochemical and environmental."
The causes of suicides are many and varying inasmuch as some owe their origin to sentiments or exasperation, frustration and revolution, some are the result of feeling of burden, torture and sadness. Some are caused by loss of employment, reverse of fortune, misery due to illness, family trouble and thwarted love. Sometimes killing is in opposition to society and sometimes in opposition to particular persons. This happens when the person committing suicide nurses a felling of unjust treatment, maltreatment and cruelty. ( See the ' Causes of Suicide' by Maurice Halbwecks ( translated by Harold Goldblatt.)"
29. It may be stated here that when the facts of the present case are examined in broad prospective and taking into consideration that since in this case, when, the death of the deceased could not be classified as ' homicidal one' or ' 13 accidental one' then the death in absence of both would be classified as ' suicidal one.'
30. Thus, we hold that the death of the deceased was suicidal one and not accidental one and thus, the findings recorded by the District Forum by which it was held that the death of the deceased was suicidal one are liable to be confirmed and the claim of the complainants appellants was rightly repudiated by the respondents through letter dated 23.9.03 as per terms and conditions of the policy.
31. Before parting with this judgment, it may be stated here that the learned counsel for the complainants appellants has placed a medical certificate issued by Dr.L.K.Bhatnagar in Form no. 3784 dated 9.7.03 in capacity as a Professor and Unit Head of Mah. Bhupal Govt. Hospital, Udaipur, in which he had stated that as far as he knew that the death of the deceased had not taken place due to his LoizR;u a and placing reliance on that certificate he had argued that since the death of the deceased was a result of self act done by the deceased, therefore, no case of suicidal death could be found established.
32. In our considered opinion, this certificate would not help to the learned counsel for the complainants appellants in any manner because of the following reasons-
(i) That this certificate was issued by the doctor on 9.7.03 14 though the death of the deceased had taken place on 5.2.03.
(ii) That the word ' LoizR;u mean that the step which was taken by the deceased for committing suicide was taken by himself and no other person was responsible for that.
(ii) That the certificate was issued on the basis of personal observations and the personal observations could not take place of strict proof but on the contrary rather it helps the case of the respondents LIC in the manner that the act of committing suicide by the deceased was not abeted by any one and that is why the police had not found any case against anybody.
33. It may be stated here that in a case when one's commits suicide, the other family members or other persons could be held guilty only when there is a case of abetment of suicide by those persons and this aspect is missing in this case, therefore, this certificate is relevant on the point that no doubt the deceased had committed suicide but no one had abeted the commission of such suicide.
34. Thus, it is held that the certificate issued by Dr.L.K.Bhatnagar in Form no. 3784 dated 9.7.03 in capacity as a Professor and Unit Head of Mah. Bhupal Govt. Hospital, Udaipur, is of no use for the reasons mentioned above and would not help in any manner to the complainants appellants and the argument of the learned counsel for the complainants 15 appellants that the death of the deceased was accidental one stands rejected.
35. For the reasons stated above, it is held that by placing cogent and reliable evidence the respondents had proved the fact that the deceased had committed suicide and thus repudiation of claim of complainants appellants by the respondents through letter dated 23.9.03 was justified and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the respondents in repudiating the claim of complainant appellant and in view of this the findings of the District Forum dismissing the complaint of the complainant appellant are liable to be confirmed as they are based on correct appreciation of entire materials and evidence available on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity,illegality or perversity and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
36. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainants appellants has stated that in case the appeal of the appellants is going to be dismissed, in such circumstances, some amount of compensation as ex-gratia be allowed to the complainant appellant no.1 who is a young widow and having two minor children and further since her husband had died at a very early stage, therefore, from that point of view also, some sort of monitory benefits must be awarded to the complainant appellant no.1 who is facing financial crises being a widow of the deceased.
16On ex-gratia payment
37. Ex-gratia payments are made as an act of grace, if the damage caused is outside the scope of the policy terms, or the liability under the policy is doubtful. In such cases the payment is made as an act of grace on humanitarian grounds. As a matter of fact, the loss or damage is outside the terms of the policy but the insurer takes a lenient view on humanitarian grounds. In such cases, full amount to indemnify the damages is not made. Such payments do not place the insurer under an obligation to make such payments in similar circumstances in future.
38. Further ex-gratia payment of claim would arise where there was no legal liability on the Life Insurance Corporation to make payment as in the case of repudiated claim or unconcluded contract. Such claims are paid to mitigate hardship to the claimants by way of equitable relief. The analysis, particularly of a repudiated claim for consideration of an ex-gratia payment, would be a skilful exercise on the part of the concerned officers of the opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India. Ex-gratia payment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. For that the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of LIC Vs. Shashi Gupta ( 1994) 2 CPR 622 (NC) ) may be referred to.
39. Further the word 'ex-gratia' payment itself means a payment which is voluntarily and charitable in nature and 17 since the C.P.Act,1986 is based on the principle of equity, therefore, hypertechnicalities could be ignored and equitable consideration should be kept in mind while deciding the matter.
40. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact the LIC policy was for a sum of Rs.3 lacs and looking to the fact that the complainant appellant no.1 is a young widow and having two minor children and on humanitarian consideration, this Commission thinks it just and proper to award ex-gratia amount of Rs.30,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant appellant no.1.
41. It is further made clear that ex-gratia payment to the tune of Rs.30,000/- in lumpsum is being given to the complainant appellant no.1 who is a youn widow and having two minor children, not as a matter of right but taken into consideration the facts and circumstances that the condition of a widow in India is not good and in the present case the complainant appellant no.1 is a widow lady.
42. In view of the discussions made above, this appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed . However, the respondents LIC would pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- in lumpsum as ex-gratia payment to the complainant appellant no.1 within a period of two months from today.
(Vimla Sethia) (Justice Sunil Kumar Garg) Member President