Where death can only reasonably be accounted for in one of two ways, by accident or design, the innocent cause ought to be presumed as against what would be prima facie a crime.

Headnote:
ACCIDENT INSURANCE - Construction of policy - Death caused by fall from window - Whether accidental - Presumption against suicide.
Fact of the Case:

The deceased, insured under an accident insurance policy, died as a result of injuries sustained in a fall from a window on the fourth floor of his residence. The insurance company denied liability, contending that the fall was suicidal and not accidental.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the fall was accidental and that the insurance company was liable to pay the additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- for which the deceased had effected insurance in respect of any accident resulting in death.
Issues: 1. Whether the deceased died in consequence of bodily injuries sustained as a result of accidental fall from the fourth floor of his residence. 2. Whether the deceased sustained any bodily injuries resulting solely and directly from an accident caused by outward violent and visible means.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was a presumption against suicide and in favor of an innocent cause of death, and that this presumption was not rebutted by the evidence presented by the insurance company. The court also held that the policy language "accident caused by outward violent and visible means" did not require the fall to be caused by an external force, but rather that the injuries sustained in the fall were the result of an accident.
Final Decision: The court entered a decree in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 50,000/- with interest, costs of the suit, and interest on judgment.

Judgment

1. This is an action on a combined policy of life insurance and accident insurance in case of death effected with the defendants, who are an insurance company, in favour of the deceased husband of the plaintiff, who, on 14-2-1950 died suddenly in consequence of a fall from a window on the fourth floor of a building in which he was residing.

Some years prior to his death, on 18-3-1947, Jamnadas Champsey, the deceased husband of the plaintiff, had insured his life with the defendants in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and in the event of the death of the deceased before the expiry of the stipulated term the defendants further guaranteed to pay the said sum of Rs. 50,000/- plus a sum at the rate of Rs. 30/- per thousand assured for each years premium paid after the first year.

By that policy of insurance the defendants further agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- if at any time when the policy was in force the life assured should sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directing from any accident caused by outward violent and visible means. By an endorsement made on the policy on 20-3-1947 the deceased nominated his wife, the plaintiff, as the person to whom the money secured under the policy should be paid in the event of his death.

On 14-2-1950 the assured, Jamnadas Champsey, died in consequence of multiple bodily injuries received as a result of a fall from the fourth floor of his residence. Champsey Building, situated at Princess Street in Bombay. The policy was in force at the time. It is the case of the plaintiff that the serious bodily injuries received by the plaintiff had resulted solely and directly from an accident caused by outward violent and visible means within the terms and meaning of the relevant clause in the policy of assurance. That clause is as under:

"Accident: If at any time when this policy is in full force and effect the life assured, before the expiry of the period during which the premium is payable or before attaining the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier, shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by outward violent and visible means and such injury shall, within three calendar months of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes, result in the death of the life assured, then the Company shall pay an additional sum equal to the sum assured as specified in the schedule to the within policy:

Provided however that the Company shall not be liable hereunder if the death of the life assured shall be caused by suicide or attempted suicide or by the life assured committing any breach of the law."

It is also the plaintiffs case that the deceased was in normal health and affluent, circumstances at the time of his death. She goes on to state in the plaint that she furnished to the defendants all available evidence and information asked for by them relating to the death of the deceased by accident but the defendants wrongfully failed to pay to the plaintiff the various sums due under the policy. In her plaint she also refers to certain correspondence which took place between the parties prior to the filing of the suit.

In that correspondence the defendants through their attorneys had stated that so far as their information went the case appeared to be one of pure and deliberate suicide and the amount claimed by the plaintiff would only be paid if she satisfied the defendants that it was not the case of suicide.

2. By their written statement the defendants, who are a leading and prominent insurance company in the country, denied that the deceased had died in consequence of bodily injuries sustained as a result of an accidental fall and stated that from inquiries made by them it appeared that the fall was not accidental but was suicidal; and they put the plaintiff to the strict proof of her allegations that the fall was accidental.

They further pointed out that the window from which the deceased was stated to have fallen out was three fee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document