Lic Of India v. Kanya Bai

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan dated 12.7.2010 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner Insurance Co. against the order of District Forum, Boondi dated 8.9.2005 in Consumer Complaint No.100/2003.

2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that Shri Babulal, husband of the complainant Kanya Bai, purchased LIC policy for sum assured Rs.3 lakhs from the petitioner/opposite party on payment of premium. The policy was valid from 25.2.2002 till 25.2.2018. It is an admitted case of the parties that during the currency of the insurance policy, Babulal was found dead in a hotel room at Kota on 8.8.2002. A police report in this regard was instituted at police station Bhimganj Mandi. The post-mortem on the dead body was conducted. As per the post-mortem report, opinion as to cause of death was kept pending till the examination of viscera.

3. Respondent Kanya Bai filed insurance claim with the petitioner/opposite party. The claim however, was repudiated on the ground that Babulal have committed suicide by consuming poison and, therefore, as per the exception clause of the insurance policy, claim was not payable.

4. Learned District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.3 lakhs within a period of one month along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation of the amount.

5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, petitioner preferred an appeal. The State Commission, Rajasthan, however, do not find fault with the order of the District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

6. Learned Shri Kamal Mehta, Advocate has contended that the impugned orders of the Foras below are not sustainable because both the Foras below have failed to appreciate that the dead body of the life assured was found in the room of Shivam Hotel which was bolted from inside. A bottle of pesticide with a brand name Badal was also found near the body which is indicative of the fact that the deceased had consumed pesticide to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the Insurance Co. was right in repudiating the insurance claim in view of the exception clause which provides that in case of suicide, the insurance claim shall not be payable.

7. Learned Shri S.N. Kumawat, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.

8. The facts of the case are more or less admitted. The short point which needs to be considered is whether or not the life assured Babulal has committed suicide by consuming poison? On perusal of the report under section 174 prepared by the police as also the investigation report of the investigator appointed by the petitioner and the post-mortem report, it is evident that these reports are silent about the cause of death. From the report under section 174 CrPC, we find that the opinion regarding cause of death was withheld by the police authority pending the chemical examination report of the viscera. Same is the case of the post-mortem report. Thus in our view, the cause of death of Babulan has not been established. As the petitioner has declined to pay the insurance claim on the ground that the life assured has committed suicide, the onus of proving this fact squarely lies on the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to discharge that onus. The death took place on 8.8.2002 and now we are in the year 2015. By now, the report of the viscera examination must have come. The petitioner has not bothered to find out the result of the viscera examination report till date. In view of the discussion above, we find that the petitioner has failed to establish that the life assured committed suicide. Thus the repudiation of the claim on the part of the petitioner is not justified and it amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, we do not find any fault with the concurrent findings of the Foras below which may call for our interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner Co. to the respondent. ......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER