State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gurmail Kaur on 10 June, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1406 of 2006
Date of institution : 10.11.2006
Date of Decision : 10.6.2011
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
Outside Dhuri Gate, Sangrur - 148 001 (Punjab)
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Gurmail Kaur widow of late Shri Kirtan Singh; resident of Village Maha
Singh Wala, Post Office Bhullan, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.
2. The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Head Office Patiala Gate, Sangrur - 148 001
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 5.10.2006 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Suri-I, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None.
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd.(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 5.10.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of respondent No. 1/complainant(hereinafter called 'respondent No.1') was allowed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased husband of respondent No. 1 had opened saving bank account No. 153 with respondent No. 2 and as per scheme of respondent No. 2 called as First Appeal No. 1406 of 2006 2 "Sehkari Bank Bima Yozna", the saving bank account holders opening bank account with minimum balance of Rs. 1,000/- was eligible to join the scheme known as "Insurance Linked Deposit Scheme". The deceased also opted the scheme and as such, he was insured under the insurance cover known as "Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy" of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 1 lac. Kirtan Singh (husband of respondent No.1) died in a Railway Accident on 7.10.2004. Police was immediately informed and deceased's post mortem was conducted. Insurance claim was lodged with the appellant through respondent No. 2, which was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 20.5.2005 on the ground that the insured had committed suicide, as such, his death was not accidental. The version of respondent No. 1 was that her claim was repudiated on false ground of suicide. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 18% P.A. from 7.10.2004 till payment and also prayed for compensation.
3. Upon notice, respondent No. 2 replied by taking preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable as no succession certificate was filed by respondent No. 1. On merits, it was admitted that Kirtan Singh(deceased) was insured with the appellant as the deceased was having account with the answering respondent. Premium was paid by the answering respondent to the appellant. It was admitted that accidental death of Kirtan Singh was intimated by respondent No. 1 to the answering respondent and requisite documents were supplied to the answering respondent by respondent No. 1. Thereafter, claim has preferred to the appellant but vide letter dated 8.4.2005, the appellant had repudiated the claim on the ground that the same was not payable as the death was not accidental but due to suicide.
First Appeal No. 1406 of 2006 3
4. Upon notice, appellant replied by taking preliminary objections that respondent No. 1 had no cause of action to file the complaint, respondent No. 1 failed to produce succession certificate and the claim was not payable as the insured had committed suicide. It was admitted that the deceased was insured with the appellant but it was denied that insured died in an accidental death but he had committed suicide. As such, vide letter dated 8.4.2005, respondent No. 1 was informed regarding the repudiation of her claim, which was not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. All other allegations were denied and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant as follows:-
(a) settle the claim and pay to the CC a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accidental death i.e. 7.10.2004 till its realization.
(b) pay Rs. 2000/- as damages for mental tension and harassment, and (c ) pay Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses.
6. Hence, the appeal.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that the deceased Kirtan Singh was insured with the appellant under "Insurance Linked Deposit Scheme", which was called ""Sehkari Bank Bima Yozna" to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. There is also no dispute that the insured Kirtan Singh died on 7.10.2004.
First Appeal No. 1406 of 2006 4
9. Respondent No. 1 informed regarding the death of her husband to respondent No. 2 and submitted the requisite documents for the claim of insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Respondent No. 2 submitted the same with the appellant for the payment of the claim. The claim of respondent No. 1 was repudiated by the appellant vide letter Ex. R-4 dated 20.5.2005 on the ground that "as per inquest report of the Police, the decased has committed Suicide, which is not covered under the policy".
10. On the other hand, the version of respondent No. 1 was that her husband Kirtan Singh died due to Railway accident on 7.10.2004 and he has not committed suicid. Her claim was wrongly repudiated and she was entitled for the same.
11. Now only the dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 1 is whether the insured died due to Railway accident or he had committed suicide?
12. The claim of respondent No. 1 was repudiated only on the basis of inquest report Ex. R-14, verification of S.H.O. Ex. R-15 and final report of S.H.O. Ex. R-16.
13. We have perused these reports.
14. In column No. 4 of the Inquest Report Ex. R-14 it was mentioned that the Police had received one memo from the Railway Authorities regarding dead body lying on track at K.M. No. 180/67. The dead body was taken in possession by the Police of Police Station, G.R.P. Jind and got the post-mortem of the dead body conducted from Medical Officer, General Hospital, Narwana. In the Inquest Report in column No. 6 it is mentioned as under:-
"In my opinion the cause of death is Suicide by Rail. None is blamed in this case."First Appeal No. 1406 of 2006 5
15. We have also perused the verification of S.H.O. Ex. R-15, which is signed by Manjit Singh, Karamjit Singh, Sukhchain Singh, Daler Singh, Sarpanch and Avtar Singh. In the said report, it is mentioned that the statements of the witnesses Manjit Singh, Karamjit Singh, Sukhchain Singh, which were earlier recorded by Dharampal, ASI admitted to be correct. The cause of suicide was that the deceased was mentally disturbed. He was got treated by the family members of the deceased but he was not recovered from the ailment. The insured himself committed suicide after jumping in front of the Train.
16. We have also perused the final report of S.H.O. Ex. R-16.
17. In the final report, the S.H.O. came to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide and as such, no case is made out against any person.
18. No affidavit of S.H.O., A.S.I. Dharampal or the witnesses, namely, Manjit Singh, Karamjit Singh and Sukhchain Singh produced by the appellant to prove its version that the deceased was mentally disturbed and he committed suicide and his death was not accidental. No record of any hospital was produced by the appellant to prove that the deceased had taken any treatment for the ailment of mental disturbance. No eye witness was examined by the Police to come to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide and his death was not accidental. Even the Driver of the Train was not examined in the investigation by the Police nor his statement was recorded to come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was due to suicide. The Driver of the Train was the proper and eye witness, who could disclose the cause of death but he was not joined in the investigation for the reason best known to the G.R.P. Police, Jind. Even the appellant has also not got investigated the cause of death First Appeal No. 1406 of 2006 6 from the Investigator to come to the conclusion that whether the deceased died due to accidental death or not and he had committed suicide or not?
19. On the other hand respondent No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Karamjit Singh as Ex. C-9, affidavit of Avtar Singh as Ex. C-10, affidavit of Daler Singh, Sarpanch as Ex. C-11 as well as her own affidavit Ex. C-12.
20. We have perused the affidavits. It is specifically affirmed and declared on Oath by the deponents that Kirtan Singh deceased did not commit suicide rather he died in an accident. The deponents did not know Hindi language and their signatures were obtained by the Police Officers on some papers, which were not read over to them.
21. We have also perused the post-mortem report Ex. C-2 conducted by Dr. R.K. Singla, Medical Officer, who reported in his post mortem report that all injuries described can be possible by Railway accident.
22. The claim of the claimant-respondent No. 1 was repudiated only on the ground that as per the inquest report of the S.H.O., the deceased had committed suicide and as such, the claim is not payable to respondent No.1.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme in case "State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Shobanath", 2009(6) S.C.C. 600 held that inquest report cannot be treated as a piece of admissible evidence and it was observed in para 23 as follows:-
"23. So far as Inquest Report is concerned, the same is prepared by the police who are not experts like the doctors and therefore no such weightage could be given on the Inquest Report. It is also settled law that Inquest Report cannot be treated as a piece of admissible evidence. One of the main grounds for acquitting the accused respondents by the High First Appeal No. 1406 of 2006 7 Court was alleged discrepancies in the aforesaid reports which according to us is based on misreading of evidence and misappreciation."
24. The deceased was also insured with IFFCO- TOKIO Ins. Co. Ltd. vide policy No. 51008229 under policy known as "Sankat Haran Bima Yojna of IFFCO, KRIBHCO & IPl" under above mentioned policy. Claim of deceased Kirtan Singh was also submitted by respondent No. 1 before the IFFCO-TOKIO Ins. Co. and the said IFFCO-TOKIO Ins. Co. paid the accidental claim of deceased Kirtan Singh vide cheque No. 219907 dated 23.3.2005 of Rs. 1,00,400/-. Letter regarding payment of claim is Ex. C-6.
25. No cogent and direct evidence was produced by the appellant to prove its version that the insured had committed suicide and his death was not accidental.
26. The order passed by the learned District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal being without any merit is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- as the appellant compelled the widow to knock the door of the District Forum to get her claim, which was illegally repudiated by the appellant. The impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
27. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 6.6.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
28. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
29. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. First Appeal No. 1406 of 2006 8
30. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
June 10, 2011. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member