National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Anita Shekhawat on 28 November, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2728 OF 2008 (From the order dated 19.03.2008 in Appeal No. 939/2002 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Branch Manager Near Collector Office, District Sikar State of Rajasthan Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP) Versus Anita Shekhawat W/o Late Rajendra Singh Shekhawat R/o House Near Samrat Cinema Barech Marg, Sikar,Tehsil & Distt. Sikar State of Rajasthan Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Harvinder Kaur, Advocate Mr. Nishesh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 28th November, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 939 of 2002 Smt. Anita Shekhawat Vs. LIC of India by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and complaint was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent Smt. Anita Shekhawats husband Shri Rajender Singh Shekhawat took twenty-year Money Back Policy with accident benefit on 28.3.1990 and another Jeevan Mitra Policy with accident benefit on 28.3.1993 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Complainant was nominee in both the policies. On 30.6.2001, Rajender Singh Shekhawat suffered stomach pain and under the mistaken belief of pouch of Zarda, consumed sulphos tablets and expired on 1.7.2001. Complainant preferred claim before the OP/petitioner.
OP made payment of Rs.1,79,800/- and Rs.2,63,100/- towards the basic sum assured under the policies respectively, but claim for accident benefit was repudiated by letter dated 8.1.2002 on the ground that consumption of poison by the deceased did not fall within the category of accident. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and reiterated the same grounds for repudiation of the claim. After hearing both the parties, District Forum dismissed the complaint against which appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and petitioner was directed to pay accident benefits with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that death on account of consumption of sulphos tablets does not fall within the purview of accident benefit and learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in accepting appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. It is admitted case of the parties that deceased obtained two policies with accident benefits. It is also not disputed that deceased consumed sulphos tablets and died on next day.
6. Now, the question to be decided by this Commission is whether death due to consumption of sulphos tablets falls within the purview of Clause 10 (b) of the policy for grant of accident benefits. Clause 10 (b) runs as under:
10 (b) Death of the Life Assured:- to pay an additional sum equal to the Sum Assured under this policy. If the Life Assured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and such injury shall within 120 days of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes result in the death of the Life Assured. However, such additional sum payable in respect of this policy, together with any such additional sums payable under other policies on the life of the Life Assured shall not exceed Rs.5,00,000/-.
7. Perusal of this clause clearly reveals that death must occur on account of sustaining bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means. In the case in hand, there is no question of bodily injury due to outward violent means as death had occurred due to consumption of sulphos tablets.
In such circumstances, merely because assured consumed sulphos tablet under the mistaken belief of Zarda, complainant was not entitled to get accident benefits and learned District forum rightly dismissed complaint.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that death occurred due to unforeseen and unplanned event which falls within purview of accident. We do not agree with this submission as grant of accident benefits has been specifically defined under Clause 10 (b) of the policy and death must occur on account of bodily injury caused by outward and violent action. This Commission in 1997 (2) CPR 8 (NC) LIC of India Vs. Ramesh Chandra has held that District forum and State Commission had no jurisdiction to go beyond terms and conditions of policy which are to be strictly complied with and in such circumstances, as death of the assured did not occur due to outward, violent or bodily injury, complainant was not entitled to get accident benefits and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and allowing accident benefits which is liable to be set aside.
9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 19.3.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 939 of 2002 Smt. Anita Shekhawat Vs. LIC of India is set aside and order of District Forum dismissing complaint is upheld. There shall be no order as to cost.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k