National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. Nirmala Meena vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 23 October, 2009
OP 10/1998 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3238 OF 2007 [Against the order dated 25.06.2007 passed in Appeal No. 76/2000 by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur] National Insurance Co. Ltd. 3, Middleton Street Calcutta, Delhi Regional Office I at Tower-II, Level IV, Jeevan Bharti Building, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 and its Divisional Office, Bhagwati Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Meena, W/o Late Sh. Kailash Chand Meena R/o 214 B, Sardul Ganj, Bikaner (Rajasthan). Petitioner/opposite party Respondent/complainant Appearance :- For the petitioner/opposite party Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent/complainant Mr. Surya Prakash Gandhi, Advocate BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Pronounced on : 23.10.2009 ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER This revision petition arises under the following circumstances:
The husband of the respondent/complainant, who was serving as an Inspector with the Rajasthan Police, was covered under a Personal Accident Group Insurance Policy taken by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan for its employees and was insured under two different policies for a sum of Rs.4.00 Lakhs. Upon his death consequent to an incident of a bullet fired from service revolver on 04.09.1997, a claim was raised by the respondent/complainant, who is the nominee of the Life Assured i.e. the widow of the deceased. FIR with regard to the incident had been lodged. An inquest report was prepared by the S.D.M., which held that the death of the Life Assured was due to an accidental fire while cleaning the service revolver. The petitioner/Insurance Co. had got the matter investigated and on consideration of attending circumstances rejected the claim, holding that the death of the Life Assured was not accidental but on account of his having committed suicide.
It was on this background that a complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, Bikaner, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/Insurance Co. to release the payment of Rs.4.00 Lakhs under the policies with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 14th July, 1999 and additionally pay a cost of Rs.500/-.
The order of the District Forum was challenged by the petitioner/Insurance Co. before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, who vide the impugned order, while dismissing their appeal, however, reduced the rate of interest on the decreetal amount from 12% to 9%. The petitioner/Insurance Co. is challenging this order of the State Commission in this revision petition.
We have carefully perused the records of the case and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause 5 of Exceptions in the Personal Accident Group Insurance Policy, which is at page 62 of the paper-book and relevant portion of Clause 5(a) & (b) read as under :
EXCEPTIONS Provided always that the Company shall not be liable under this Policy for :
1.
.
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. payment of compensation in respect of Death, Injury or Disablement of the Insured Person
(a) from intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide
(b) whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs
(c) .
(d)
(e) Contending that the death of the Life Assured falls in the category of attempted suicide and therefore the petitioner/Insurance Co. is not liable, the learned counsel goes on to plead that both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have gravely erred in holding that this was a case of accidental death and not suicide.
The first and foremost contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Co. is that the postmortem report clearly pointed out and indicated that the bullet entered into the skull of the deceased from the right temporal region and exited from the left side of the skull, which further indicated that the wounds were due to firing from a close range. It could not have been a case of accidental fire in the process of cleaning the revolver. A revolver is a small tiny weapon and would normally be cleaned by the forearms in front of the body and at the most close to the chest but under no circumstance can it be said that it would be raised above the neck in the process of cleaning. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the deceased was an Inspector of Rajasthan Police and was well-versed with the process of cleaning the revolver and the consequences of any mishandling and, therefore, there is no way the bullet would have passed through the skull from the right temporal region.
Continuing further the learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Co. has contended that both the fora below have totally failed to take into account that the incident had occurred in a room which was bolted from inside and that nobody except the deceased was present there when the incident occurred.
These factors prove beyond doubt that it was indeed a case of suicide and the reliance placed on the report of the police investigation, which was subsequently affirmed by the S.D.M., have to be weighed on the face of the circumstantial evidence which by itself speaks that it was a case of suicidal death and in any case the petitioner/Insurance Co. was neither a party nor was afforded any opportunity to counter the reports on which the fora below have heavily relied upon. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order of the State Commission deserves to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Co. has relied upon and referred to the order passed by this Commission in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Versus Devinder Kaur [IV (2004) CPJ 13 (NC)], the head-note of which reads as under :-
Story that deceased taken out service revolver for itching purpose, started scratching his head with revolver, fire shot due to pressure of trigger, improbable, not acceptable Company not liable to pay accident benefit The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ complainant, however, has vehemently argued that both the District Forum as well as the learned State Commission having appreciated the evidence brought before them have held that the death of the Life Assured was due to an accidental fire and it is not a case of suicide and the role of this Commission in revision petition being limited to any illegality or jurisdictional error, there is hardly any justification for any interference in the concurrent orders of the fora below. Contending that the police report which has been accepted by the S.D.M. conclusively holds that it was not a case of suicide and referring to the report of the investigator of the petitioner/Insurance Co. Shri J.P. Bhagotia, he contends that even the investigator has not emphatically opined that it was a case of suicide. On the contrary, the investigator has stated that in the absence of any hard evidence it seems that Shri Kailash Meena had died due to bullet injury which he might have received while fiddling with his service revolver on 4.9.97, even though there is great suspicion that it was a suicide case. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the orders passed by the fora below being fully just and proper need no interference and the revision petition be dismissed with costs.
We have considered the whole matter. Undoubtedly, the insurance policy contains a clause which while covering personal accident contains an exception clause, according to which the petitioner/Insurance Co. would not be liable if the death, injury or disablement of the insured person arises from intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide.
While both the fora below have held it to be a case of accidental death, the petitioner/Insurance Co. all through has been pleading and contending that it was not so. We are inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Co. firstly because no person, more so a serving police officer, will bolt himself inside a room while cleaning his service revolver. Secondly, the postmortem report clearly indicates that the bullet has pierced through the right temporal region from a close range and it is most improbable that anybody would raise the level of his weapon in the process of its cleaning upto the level of temporal region. At the most, he may bring it close to his eyes to ascertain whether the barrel of the revolver contains any deposit or foreign material or that the holes of the cartridge case contained any corrugation and in that process a trained police Inspector is supposed to keep the barrel of the revolver pointing opposite to his body and even if it is pointed towards him, any accidental fire would pierce through his eyes or the neck and in no case can such accidental fire enter at the deviation of 90 degrees to the temporal region. We also notice that neither the police report nor any other evidence mention about the existence of any cleaning material at the site of the incident.
Thus, it was most improbable that the bullet hit the Life Assured at the temporal region accidentally in the process of its cleaning. Both the fora below appear to have been swayed by the excellent record of service, including bravery shown by him in handling terrorists and hardened criminals and in that background it would not be far from the truth to hold that the police report may have had a bearing to fit the case into that of an accident so as to make it possible for the nominee of the deceased to derive the benefit of insurance. Compassion no doubt has its own place but that should not influence or persuade adjudication of disputes, which are based on terms incorporated in the policies and agreements.
In the instant case, we find that the complainant, widow of the deceased-Life Assured Inspector has also been given an honorable job in the police force of the State besides giving her the benefit of State insurance. Insofar as the claim under this policy is concerned, in our view, there is no escape from drawing a conclusion that it was a case of suicide. The principle of res ipsa loquitor, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, can be aptly applied to the facts of the case.
Under the circumstances, the order of the State Commission is set aside and the revision petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(R.K. BATTA) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh/