Kerala High Court
Alli vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 6 February, 2008
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 776 of 2007(P)
1. ALLI, W/O.DHARMAN, AGED 60,
... Petitioner
2. USHA, W/O.ASOKAN, AGED 40,
3. PRASEETHA, W/O.HAJESH,
4. PRAVEENA, D/O.ASOKAN,
Vs
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Respondent
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===================
W.P.(C) NO. 776 OF 2007 P
===========================
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The prayer made in this writ petition is for directing the respondents to disburse the full insurance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Asokan, Nediyirippu House, Puthuvypu.
2. According to the petitioners, Asokan was a fisherman for whose welfare the 2nd respondent had subscribed a policy with the 1st respondent. In terms of the conditions of the policy, if a fisherman dies by drowning during the course of fishing, the legal heirs are entitled to the insurance amount. It is stated that on 4/12/2004, the deceased went for fishing at 7.30 P.M. and when he did not return the next day morning, a First Information Report was lodged and Crime No.493/04 was also registered by the Narackal Police Station. It is WPC 776/07 :2 : stated that the dead body was found lying in the river nearby Matsyafed Auction Centre in Puthuvypu Village and was subjected to postmortem, the report of which is Ext.P3 and Ext.P2 is the death certificate. Ext.P3 postmortem gives opinion of the Surgeon regarding the cause of death as due to drowning. Despite all these, the Insurance Company issued Ext.P5 stating that considering the facts of the case including the unexplained/uncorrelated parts of the postmortem, they will settle the claim on non-standard basis at 50% of the capital sum insured at Rs.75,000/- as a special case. It is challenging this order that the writ petition has been filed.
3. While the counsel for the writ petitioners refer to Ext.P3 postmortem report and asserts that the case of death is shown as one due to drowning, the counsel for the Insurance Company would contend for the position that the cause shown in Ext.P3 is doubtful. According to him, it is only on account of this reason that the Insurance Company WPC 776/07 :3 : has as a special case offered to settle the claim by paying 50% of the capital sum insured.
4. Having gone through Ext.P3 and also taking into account the submissions made by both sides, I have no reason to think that the Insurance Company has any justification for adopting this stand.
When the postmortem gives in clear terms that the case of death is drowning, in the absence of any materials to the contrary, the Insurance Company was not at all justified in denying the benefit of Insurance Policy to the legal heirs of the deceased. In this case, apart from the doubt that is expressed by the Insurance Company in Ext.P5, they have absolutely no material to sustain that claim. Therefore, I cannot approve Ext.P5 and hence Ext.P5 will stand quashed.
5. The respondents are therefore directed to extend the benefit of the Insurance Policy by disbursing full insurance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the WPC 776/07 :4 : deceased Asokan in terms of the conditions in the Insurance Policy.
The said payment shall be released through the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.
Rp