Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On a written report submitted by the Presiding Officer, U.D. Case No. 1 of 2000 was instituted at Baikunthpur police station at seven in the morning of 22.2.2000.

5. The doctor who conducted a post-mortem on the body of the deceased did not find any external injury on his person but recorded his opinion regarding the cause of death as follows:

In my view death occurred due to cardio-respiratory failure on account of massive myocardial infraction, heart attack triggered by extreme fear or excite ment.

9. Before proceeding further it may be noted that the insurance company does not accept the later part of the petitioner's case. It accepts the case of the petitioner only to the extent that her husband Parshuram Singh had gone on election duty where he died due to heart attack. It is suggested on behalf of the insurance company that the story of his being threatened by some armed miscreants and the threat setting off the heart attack was an after thought and was added only with the view to make out a claim for compensation under the M.O.U. It is pointed out that there was no contemporaneous recorded evidence in support of the story of the threat and the story came to light only after the death of Parshuram Singh and even then it was not stated in the written report submitted by the Presiding Officer of the polling booth to the police but was mentioned for the first time in his subsequent statement recorded by the Investigating Officer.

10. I am not prepared to reject or disbelieve the case of the petitioner regarding her husband being threatened by some armed miscreants and the threat causing him to suffer a fatal heart attack for the reasons stated on behalf of the insurance company. To any one familiar with the election process in this State, the whole thing would appear perfectly natural. Threats being given to a member of the polling party on the eve of the election is one of the commonest phenomena. It is also understandable that the matter might not be reported to the police at that time because on the eve of the election police are themselves stretched to the utmost; the police at that time are totally engaged in dealing with the law and order problem and the large scale use of violence. Even if some one would go to them, they would have not time to take notice of an isolated case of threats being given to an individual member of the polling party. Further, nothing can be made out of the omission in the written report submitted by the Presiding Officer of the booth to the local police. It is to be kept in mind that the death took place in the middle of the night and the Presiding Officer reported the matter at 6.40 in the morning when the polling was to begin shortly. He was on election duty at a strange place among total strangers. In those circumstances if he confined his report to a few lines simply informing the police about the death of his second polling officer, it cannot be contended that the incident of threat never took place because the informant omitted to mention it in his report.

17. A plain reading of the cover clause in the M.O.U. would make it clear that it is intended to impose a two-fold limitation. A death in order to qualify for the insurance cover must not only be accidental but the accident causing death must itself result from some external violent and other visible means. This two fold limitation is based on what is called, in the Law of insurance, the distinction between 'accidental result' and 'accidental means'. An unexpected and unforeseen consequence or result from a normal or routine activity may constitute an accident but it would not qualify as 'accidental means'. Thus, if a person suffers a fatal heart attack while dancing (considered to be a normal activity) the death may be called 'accidental' but it would' fail to attract the insurance cover because it was not due to 'accidental means'. On the other hand, if a person dies due to heart attack suffered as a result of over-exertion on being chased by a ferocious dog (an unintended occurrence, and not a normal activity) the death might attract the insurance cover as it was caused by 'accidental means'. This, in simple terms, is the distinction sought to be introduced in the cover clause of the M.O.U. with a view to make the application of the insurance cover more restrictive.