State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
L I C vs Mulayam Singh Yadav on 22 March, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2007/568 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. L I C A ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mulayam Singh Yadav A ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Gobardhan Yadav MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 22 Mar 2017 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No. 568 of 2007 Life Insurance Corporation of India through Manager Legal, Law Deptt., Divisional Office, LIC Bldg., Hazratganj, Lucknow. ..Appellant. Versus Mulayam Singh Yadav s/o Sri Matadeen, R/o Persauli, Post, Lakhna, District, Etawah. ...Respondent. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Govardhan Yadav, Member. Shri IPS Chaddha for the appellants. Shri S.K. Shukla for the respondent. Date 7.4.2017 JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.1.2007, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Etawah in complaint case No.77 of 1997, the appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India has preferred the instant appeal.
Facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant's son was insured with the appellant/OP for a sum of Rs.25,000.00 in March, 1993. On 25.6.1993, he was made to eat some poisonous stuff whereby his condition became serious and he was admitted in Bharthana Hospital and the police was informed. When he was being taken to Agra on 26.6.1993 then he died on the way. When no action was taken by the police then an application was given to the S.P., whereby (2) the matter was registered in G.D. no.38 of 13.7.1993. The complainant pressed claim with the appellant/OP but the claim was not allowed hence, a complaint was filed wherein the OP filed their WS mentioning therein that the death of the insured was suspicious as the death was caused due to poisoning. The complainant had not submitted the FIR and the Final Report etc. hence, the claim could not be allowed and that the OP had not committed any deficiency in service. After hearing the parties, the Forum below passed the impugned order which is as under:-
"परिवादी का परिवाद सव्यय स्वीकार किया जाता है विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि मृतक उमेश प्रताप सिंह के पालिसी का भुगतान सभी देय लाभों सहित परिवाद प्रस्तुत करने के दिनांक से 8 प्रतिशत ब्याज सहित एक माह के अन्दर इस फोरम में जमा करे, तथा मानसिक व शारीरिक कष्ट हेतु 5,000-00 रूपया एंव वाद व्यय हेतु 500-00 भी निर्णय के एक माह के अन्दर जमा करें। निर्णय का पालन निश्चित अवधि में न होने पर परिवाद प्रस्तुत किये जाने की तिथि से भुगतान किए जाने की तिथि तक 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज देय होगा।
विपक्षी द्वारा आदेश का पालन करने के पश्चात विपक्षी द्वारा जमा की गई धनराशि मृतक उमेश प्रताप सिंह की पत्नी को नियमानुसार देय होगी।"
Feeling aggrieved with this judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred.
The main grounds of the appeal are that the death of the policy holder was suspicious as the policy holder was administered poison by someone but no Post Mortem. FR or Panchnama or Medical evidence pertaining to the treatment etc. was provided therefore, it could not be (3) ascertained that it was a case of poisoning or attempted suicide hence, the claim remained pending. The ld. Forum has allowed the complaint without any deficiency in service of the OP, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.
In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant's son was insured with the appellant/OP for a sum of Rs.25,000.00 and that during the validity of the life insurance policy the insured died due to poisoning but the disputed point according to the appellant is that the complainant had committed suicide as the medical report shows that he had taken sulfas because of which he died and hence it was a case of suicide and as per the policy condition the Insurance Company was not liable to make any payment. On the contrary, according to the respondent/complainant his son had died because of poisoning and had not committed suicide and therefore, the appellant/OP had committed deficiency in service in not allowing the claim of the complainant.
Now it is to be seen as to whether the complainant's son had committed suicide therefore, the appellant had not committed any deficiency in service in not allowing the claim of the complainant.
Ld. counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant's son had committed suicide as he had taken sulfas and therefore, the death was caused due to suicide and since it was a case of suicide therefore, the appellant (4) was not liable to make payment of any claim under the insurance policy. In this regard, ld. counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the discharge slip of the District Hospital, Etawah wherein the diagnosis is shown as (susp sulfas poisoning) and on the basis of this diagnosis, it is argued that the deceased had died because he had committed suicide by taking sulfas. The ld. counsel for the respondent argues that it was not a case of suicide but a case of poisoning for which the police was informed but the police had not taken any action. It transpires that the fact of poisoning is admitted to the respondent and even though he had informed the police about it but no action was taken by the policy and therefore, on the basis of no action taken by the police or the respondent not taking the matter further up, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that it was not a case of murder by poisoning and the only conclusion that could be drawn is that it was a case of suicide and therefore, the appellant in a case of suicide was not liable to make the claim but we find that just because the death was caused by administering of Sulfas does not necessarily mean that the deceased had committed suicide. The benefit of suicide condition could be availed of by the appellant when they are able to prove that the deceased had committed suicide and there is no evidence to prove that the deceased had committed suicide. Since in a case of poisoning, the matter is to be criminally investigated, which does not appear to have been done in the instant case even though the complainant had reported the matter to the police but (5) simply on that reasoning it can not be concluded that the complainant's son had committed suicide. The appellant has to prove that it was simply a case of suicide by providing positive evidence on record such as any police report or suicide note etc. Therefore, even though there may be suspicion of commission of suicide, it can not be held conclusively that the complainant's son had committed suicide. Therefore, the appellant can not take refuge under the policy condition of suicide for not making the payment of the claim. There was a loss of life by poisoning but as the factum of suicide was not proved as discussed above, therefore, the appellant had committed deficiency in service in not making the payment of the claim. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order which is based on reasoning. We find no reason to interfere in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Govardhan Yadav) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II Court No.3 -spacerun:yes'> [HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Gobardhan Yadav] MEMBER