National Consumer Disputes Redressal
L.I.C. Of India & Anr vs Balbir Kaur on 5 December, 2008
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NOS. 1982 to 1990 OF 2004 (From the order dated 27.04.2004 in Appeal Nos. 1014 of 2002 of the State Commission, Chandigarh) L.I.C. of India & Anr. Petitioners Versus Balbir Kaur Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER HONBLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT MR. KAMAL MEHTA, ADVOCATE. MR. SUDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE. FOR THE RESPONDENT- MR. N.R. SINGH, ADVOCATE. PRONOUNCED ON: 05.12.2008 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN J., PRESIDENT Life Insurance Corporation of India-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has filed the present Revision Petition impugning the Order dated 27.04.2004 passed by the State Commission, Punjab dismissing the appeal of the petitioner thereby confirming the Order of the District Forum, Jalandhar dated 21.06.2002. The District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). The facts leading to the filing of this Revision Petition are stated hereinafter.
The respondent is the wife of late Shri Sardar Piara Singh Chandi. The said late Shri Sardar Piara Singh Chandi had taken and/or purchased ten insurance policies on his life from the petitioner. The details of the same are as under: -
Sr. No. Policy No. Sum Assured (Rs.) Half yearly premium amount (Rs.) Date of proposal Date of commencement of the policy
1.
130699346 50,000 3528 1994 1994
2. 130697511 50,000 3489 1995 1995
3. 131390077 1,50,000 4254 01.10.1999 12.11.1999
4. 131390009 50,000 1418 01.10.1999 14.11.1999
5. 131079944 1,00,000 3787 15.10.1999 03.11.1999
6. 131312325 1,00,000 2830 29.11.1999 15.12.1999
7. 131390274 1,00,000 2830 07.12.1999 15.12.1999
8. 131390272 1,00,000 2830 07.12.1999 15.12.1999
9. 131390273 1,00,000 2830 07.12.199 15.12.1999
10. 131352963 1,00,000 2830 06.03.2000 23.03.2000 The date of commencement of first policy was 1994 and of second policy 1995. The third policy was taken on 12.11.1999 and then, the fourth policy was taken on 14.11.1999. Thereafter, seven other policies were taken. The last policy was taken on 22.03.2000. The case of the respondent was that the deceased late Shri Sardar Piara Singh Chandi, at the time of his death, was quite hale and hearty. That he had purchased ten insurance policies with accidental benefits. The respondent being the wife was nominated as the nominee under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and, accordingly, she was entitled to receive the claim on the death of the insured. That on 19.04.2000, while late Shri Sardar Piara Singh Chandi was crossing the railway line, he was accidentally run over by a train due to which he died. His body was sent for postmortem examination on the same day. As per the postmortem report the death of late Shri Sardar Piara Singh Chandi was accidental and during inquest proceedings also, it was found that death of late Shri Sardar Piara Singh Chandi was an accidental death. After obtaining death certificate, a claim along with policy bond was submitted to the opposite parties-petitioners. As no action was taken by the petitioners for 1- years, complainant along with her son visited the office of the petitioners but no satisfactory reply was given. On 20.02.2002, complainant again visited the office of the petitioner along with her son. The Branch Manager refused to pay the amount and told the complainant that she was not entitled to any claim as insured late Shri Sardar Piara Singh Chandi died within one year of the purchase of the policy. According to her, the petitioner had repudiated the respondents claim without any justification, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, it was prayed that the petitioner be directed to pay the sum assured along with bonus amount with accrued interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of death till its realization. She also demanded compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.
The Opposite Party/petitioner in its written statement refuted all the allegations levelled by the complainant-respondent and stated that late Shri Sardar Piara Singh Chandi-deceased took the insurance policies with malafide intention. These policies were obtained by the deceased in order to get wrongful gain from the petitioner. It was further stated that late Shri Sardar Piara Singh Chandi-deceased had committed suicide on the railway track after getting the insurance policies from the petitioner. That deceased committed suicide at 08.50 A.M. on 19.04.2000 in broad daylight. That the complainant has failed to explain as to why the deceased had gone to a remote area without any reason where no other person was there. The site plan produced by the complainant clearly depicted that the deceased committed suicide. The deceased took eight insurance policies within a span of four months, which clearly showed the intention of the deceased. If all the policies are to be considered together, their yearly premium comes to approximately Rs.60,000/-. The total income of the deceased was Rs.1,60,000/- per year out of which he could not afford to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as premium for the policies taken by him. That since the deceased had committed suicide, the insurance company was not liable to pay the insured amount. It was further stated that the assured amount of two policies No. 130699346 and 130697511 taken by the respondent in the year 1994 and 1995, respectively were paid to the complainant. It was asserted that the claim had rightly been repudiated and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. That the complaint as such was liable to be dismissed.
The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum assured along with interest @ 9%. The complaint was accepted with costs, which was assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, Punjab. The State Commission by the impugned Order upheld the Order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. The State Commission held that the petitioner had failed to prove even remotely as to what were the compelling circumstances which could prompt the deceased to take his own life to help the members of his family. It was also held that the deceased was financially sound and was in a position to pay Rs.55,000/- as installments of the policies taken by him.
Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
The insured took eight insurance policies within 4 months of his death. Deceased died within 27 days of the taking of last policy, i.e., on 22.03.2000. Deceased conducted suspiciously while taking last eight policies. Out of the eight policies taken, some of the policies were taken on the single day. The element of deception could be traced from the fact that while taking some of the policies, the policyholder concealed the factum of some of the policies taken earlier. It is also not out of place to mention that while taking the policies, the policyholder took three different policies from Jalandhar while the fourth one was taken from Dasuya. All the policies contained double accident benefit thus entitling the claimants to get accelerated amount in the case of accident.
As per the postmortem report, the body of the insured was found cut into two pieces thus ruling out any possibility of an accident. Had it been an accident, the body would have been thrashed/crushed by the train leaving the body into a mangled condition. The map annexed with the postmortem report also indicates that the body was cut into two pieces. The rear portion of the body was lying at site A whereas the upper half of the body was lying at spot B. Ex-facie, it was not a case of accident but a deliberate and/or intentional act of suicide.
The accident took place during day time at around 08.45 A.M. on 19.04.2000. The policyholder covered a distance of 8 km from his house to the railway line. No explanation as to for what purpose he had gone to that place has come forth. The accident took place at a place which was not a thoroughfare. All these factors indicate that the deceased had gone to a secluded place to commit suicide.
Another aspect which throws suspicion is that the yearly income of the deceased was Rs.1,60,000/- and the yearly premium of the policies which deceased had taken was approximately Rs.55,000/-. No doubt it was for the deceased to fix his priorities as to how he intended to spend his money but the cumulative effect of taking eight policies in a short span of 4 months immediately before the death coupled with the fact that he had gone to a secluded place which was not a thoroughfare does create a doubt that the death was due to suicide and not accidental. The unexplained haste of taking eight policies just before unnatural death of the deceased accompanied by suspicious conduct of the policy holder points to obvious inference of suicidal bent of mind.
This Commission in State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Smt. Asha Rani, III 92003) CPJ 172 (NC) while dealing with a similar situation and circumstance of taking successive insurance policies in short period of time, repudiated the claim for the insured amount. Whether the death is accidental or suicide has to be decided in each case on its own facts. In the present case, we are satisfied that the deceased committed suicide and he had taken the policies in contemplation of his death in order to benefit his dependants after his death.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the District Forum as well as the State Commission committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the deceased did not commit suicide. In our opinion, it seems to be a case of suicide and, if that is so, the respondent would not be entitled to maintain its claim for getting the assured amount under the policies. Accordingly, the Order of the District Forum as well as the State Commission is set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT (B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER REVISION PETITION NOS. 1982 to 1990 OF 2004 (From the order dated 27.04.2004 in Appeal Nos. 1014 of 2002 of the State Commission, Chandigarh) L.I.C. of India & Anr. Petitioners Versus Balbir Kaur Respondent Draft Order in the above matter is sent herewith for your kind perusal. If approved, the same may be listed for pronouncement.
(ASHOK BHAN J.) President 03.012.2008 Hon. Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member Hon. Mr. S.K. Naik, Member REVISION PETITION NOS. 1982 to 1990 OF 2004 (From the order dated 27.04.2004 in Appeal Nos. 1014 of 2002 of the State Commission, Chandigarh) L.I.C. of India & Anr. Petitioners Versus Balbir Kaur Respondent As directed, please list the above matter for pronouncement on 05.12.2008 in Court No.1 to be pronounced by Hon. Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President.
(Sumit Malhotra) PS-to-Hon. President 04.12.2008 Shri H.D. Nautiyal Joint Registrar by observing as under:-
the state commission was of the view that appellant had not given any reasonable explanation for obtaining 10 policies in the name of wives within a period of three month from the date of accident.