National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Life Insurance Corpn. Of India vs Smt. Shanta @ Radhike Lagma Dolli on 25 October, 2002
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum whereupon a complaint being filed by the respondent/complainant, the District Forum dismissed the complaint but on an appeal being filed by the complainant, the complaint was allowed.
2. Briefly, the admitted facts of the case are that the complainant's husband had taken three Life Insuranance Policies and had died on 30.12.1995. On a claim preferred by the complainant who was the wife of the deceased and also the 'nominee' in the policy, it was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that the policy holder died on account of suicide and the terms of policy specifically excluded benefits accruing from the policy in case of death on account of suicide. Alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum which dismissed the complaint holding the grounds of repudiation as correct. On an appeal being filed by the complaint, it was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay amounts of three Life Policies along with interest @ 12% and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
3. The only point of dispute is whether it was a case of Suicide ? Argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that reliance has to be placed on the medical report of the hospital, post mortem report and the outcome of police investigation. We have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. Undisputed fact of the case is that the deceased policy holder died on account of organo-phospherous poison. Medical record and the post mortem report says so. But what we are unable to satisfy ourselves relate to the fact that it was a case of suicide. Except for the police report there is no other evidence which says as per statements of the blood relation the deceased was suffering from some kidney disorder and in a state of depression consumed poison and committed suicide. We are not aware what efforts were made by the Investigation Officer to confirm that indeed the deceased had some kidney disorder to corroborate the statements with some hard evidence. We agree with the State Commission that there is no evidence on record to show that the insured had taken the substance voluntarily. The State Commission has examined the point at length and we are in full agreement with that analysis and the conclusion reached by it that there is no concrete hard evidence to show that it was a case of suicide. The order of the State Commission is just and proper and does not call for any interference. It is upheld.
We see no merit in the Revision Petition and is dismissed. No order as to costs.