State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dharam Chand vs The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance ... on 9 April, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.278 of 2013
Date of institution : 11.03.2013
Date of decision : 09.04.2015
Dharam Chand s/o Chuhara Ram, resident of Village Sainchan, P.O.
Adamwal, District Hoshiarpur.
.......Appellant-Complainant
Versus
1. The Division Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jiwan Parkash, Model Town Road, Jalandhar City.
2. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mall
Road, Hoshiarpur.
........Respondents-Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
28.01.2013 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Shri P.S. Kanwar, Advocate.
For the respondents :None.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/complainant, Dharam Chand, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28.1.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for directing the respondents/opposite parties to pay the death claim (Rs.2,70,000/-) First Appeal No.278 of 2013. 2 along with bonus/interest and Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for mental and physical harassment suffered by him, was dismissed.
2. The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that Harpinder Bhatia was holder of life insurance policy named "LIC Jiveen Anand"
bearing No.133202783 with Rs.1,35,000/-, as the sum assured. That Policy was obtained by the insured from opposite party No.2 on 17.5.2010 after the payment of Rs.7,589/-, as the annual premium. He was appointed as the nominee under that Policy by the insured. Harpinder Bhatia was murdered by the assailants on 24.7.2010 regarding which FIR was registered in PS-Sadar. The opposite parties were informed about his death, vide letter dated 26.8.2011. Opposite party No.1, vide letter dated 26.8.2011 asked for the original policy and relevant documents, which were duly submitted by him in its office. Legal notice dated 4.11.2011 was also sent by him to the opposite parties for the settlement of the claim but the same was not settled. He filed CC No.29 of 2012 before the District Forum, which was allowed. The District Forum directed him to file formal claim application de novo with the opposite parties within 30 days and they were directed to process and settle his claim within 60 days. Accordingly he filed application for settling the claim within the specified period but the same was repudiated, vide letter dated 7.7.2012, on flimsy grounds. Regarding the murder of the insured not only FIR No.114 dated 24.7.2010 was lodged in PS-Sadar under Section 302/120-B IPC on his statement but he also filed a criminal complaint, which is still pending before the ACJM, Hoshiarpur, against Darshan Lal, Manjit Kaur, Sonu and others. Statement of Dr. First Appeal No.278 of 2013. 3 Jaswinder Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, has already been recorded in that complaint. While repudiating the claim a wrong view was taken by the opposite parties without getting the matter investigated.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. They did not dispute that Harpinder Bhatia had obtained the Policy mentioned in the complaint on the payment of Rs.7,589/-, as the annual premium and that the sum assured was Rs.1,35,000/- and that the complainant was appointed, as nominee, under that Policy. They also did not dispute that the first complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and they were directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 60 days after the filing of the fresh application regarding that claim. They admitted that the claim filed by the complainant was repudiated. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that the Policy was obtained on 17.5.2010, whereas the insured was reported to have died on 24.7.2010. Being an early death claim, they got the matter investigated and the cause of death of the insured was not found to be murder but the same was a case of suicide. The cause of death was declared to be as a result of poisoning (aluminum phosphide-insecticide), which was sufficient to cause the death. From the post mortem report and the Chemical Examiner's report, it stands established that there was no injury mark on the internal aspect of both the lips, gums and teeth; which proves that the aluminum phosphide-insecticide was taken by the insured/deceased deliberately. The claim of the complainant was First Appeal No.278 of 2013. 4 rightly repudiated on the ground that the insured committed suicide, by invoking clause 6 of the Policy. All these facts have been suppressed by the complainant and he has not come to the District Forum with clean hands. He is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct. It is not a simple consumer complaint and requires much evidence to conclude the matter in controversy, which can be settled only by producing cogent evidence by the parties. The intricate questions of law are involved, which cannot be decided by the District Forum. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint; being false and frivolous.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant as no one appeared on behalf of the respondents/opposite parties. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that the insured committed suicide. From the evidence produced on the record, it stands proved that he was murdered. It is very much apparent from the facts, as disclosed in the FIR Mark C-3 and the Criminal Complaint Ex.OP-15, that the insured was kidnapped by Darshan Lal and others, who not only gave beatings to him but also made him to consume aluminum phosphide-insecticide. From the evidence, so produced on the record, it stands proved that the insured was First Appeal No.278 of 2013. 5 murdered. Therefore, the opposite parties could not have repudiated the claim of the complainant by invoking clause 6 of the insurance policy.
7. The Policy, so obtained by the insured, was 'Jeevan Anand (with profits) (with accident benefit)' and the same was proved on the record by the opposite parties, as Ex.OP-2. Clause 6 of the conditions incorporated therein, is reproduced below:-
"6. SUICIDE: This Policy shall be void if the Life Assured commits suicide (whether sane or insane at the time) at any time on or after the date on which the risk under the Policy has commenced but before the expiry of one year from the date of commencement of risk under this Policy and the Corporation will not entertain any claim by virtue of this Policy except to the extent of a third party's bona fide beneficial interest acquired in the Policy for valuable consideration of which notice has been given in writing to the branch where the Policy is being presently serviced (where the policy records are kept), at least one calendar month prior to death."
Admittedly the insured had died within one year of the obtaining of the Policy. The only question to be determined is, whether he was murdered or committed suicide? The complainant is placing reliance on his own affidavit Ex.C-1, FIR Ex.C-3 and the criminal complaint filed by him and proved by the opposite parties as Ex.OP-15. In his First Appeal No.278 of 2013. 6 affidavit he had said nothing as to how the death of the insured took place and only stated that he died on 24.7.2010 and that he lodged FIR No.114 and also filed criminal complaint. He narrated in the FIR that his son Harpinder Bhatia was serving in Rampa Automobiles, Hoshiarpur on the computer seat. On 22.7.2010 at about 8.00 A.M. he had gone to the place of his work but did not come back in the evening. He came to know that he was beaten by Sonu along with 10 other boys and they had also threatened to kill him. On 23.7.2010 at about 8.00 A.M. he (complainant) was called to the house of Darshan Lal, Sarpanch. He was told that Harpinder had given a telephonic call for marrying Babita daughter of Bishan Dass and that he should be produced before the Panchayat for submitting an apology. On the same day he was told by Harpinder that he was in the house of his sister at Islamabad and when he was asked to come back to the house, he told that he would be coming in the next morning. On the next day he was told on the telephone by Harpinder that Sonu and his companions had forcibly taken him to Chohal and by holding his arms they have put sulphas in his mouth and that thereafter they had run away from that place. Thereafter he accompanied by one worker of Rampa Auto Agency went to Chohal and found Harpinder lying on the ground and the police patrol van was lying parked nearby. While Harpinder was being removed to the hospital, he was again told by him that Sonu along with four other boys had committed that occurrence. Similar facts were stated by the complainant in the criminal complaint. From his statement it may be said that dying declaration was made before him by the First Appeal No.278 of 2013. 7 insured/deceased but before drawing any conclusion on the basis thereof, the other evidence on the record is also to be looked into; which consists of Post Mortem Report and the report of the Chemical Examiner. The Post Mortem Report was proved as Mark C-4 and the Report of the Chemical Examiner is a part thereof. The doctors had not given any opinion about the cause of death after the post mortem examination and deferred the same till the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, to whom the viscera was sent. The Chemical Examiner found aluminum phosphide-insecticide in that viscera. The police asked the Doctors to give the details of the injuries on the dead body and they specifically disclosed in the post mortem report that there were only two injuries present on the body, which were of different duration and were simple in nature. The details of the injuries were given in the post mortem report and were also depicted in the pictorial diagram Mark C-5. Those injuries were on the arms and the hands. It was specifically stated in the post mortem report by the Doctors that there was no injury mark present in the internal aspect of both lips, gums and teeth.
8. It is a matter of common knowledge that aluminum phosphide gives a very pungent smell. It cannot be administered to a person easily. It can be administered only by force. When the same is to be administered by force that is bound to cause some injury on the lips, gums or teeth of the victim. As already said above, the Doctors had specifically stated in the post mortem report that no such injury was found, which excludes the possibility of the forcible administration of the aluminum phosphide-insecticide to the insured/deceased. The First Appeal No.278 of 2013. 8 opposite parties proved on the record the untraced report of the Police, Ex.OP-21. A perusal thereof shows that the detailed investigation was conducted by the police into the allegations made in the FIR and after that investigation it came to the conclusion that the sulphas tablets were not administered to the deceased by force. On the basis of the above discussion, we conclude that the insured/deceased voluntarily consumed the sulphas tablets. Therefore, it was a case of suicide and not a case of murder. Such a death is excluded by virtue of above reproduced clause of the insurance policy. No illegality was committed by the opposite parties by repudiating the claim of the complainant by invoking that clause. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
9. The arguments in this case were heard on 30.3.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) April 09, 2015 MEMBER Bansal First Appeal No.278 of 2013. 9