IMPORTANT POINT
Where Insurance Company sought to repudiate claim on ground that insured committed suicide and it was not accidental death, onus would be on Insurance Company to produce evidence regarding suicidal death.

S.G. Deshmukh, Presiding Judicial Member—The present appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 9.11.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in C.C. No.41/ 2005.

The appellants’ / complainants’ case before the Forum is that Raju Kashettiwar husband of Appellant No.1 and father of Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 was serving in Rajura Nagar Parishad and he was the member of Shaskiya and Ardha Shaskiya Sewak Sahakari Sanstha, Karmachari. It is contended that the said Sahakari Sanstha had obtained Janata Personal Accident Policy for their members through Respondent No.2-District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., from Respondent No.1 Insurance Co. for the period .from 1997 to 2011 for sum assured Rs. 5,00,000. It is contended that the name of deceased Raju Kashettiwar appeared at Sl. No 97 of list. It is contended that the deceased had been to Nagpur for some work on 19.3.2002 and on 24.3.2002 his dead body was found in Gandhi Sagar Lake in Nagpur. It is contended that the spot Panchanama and post-mortem was carried out on the dead body. It is contended that complainant No.1 preferred the claim along with papers with the Respondent No.1. It is contended that the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 5.8.2004, mentioning that complainant is not entitled for the claim as per the report of Investigating Officer. It is contended that the complainant gave notice dated 29.12.2004 through their Counsel and the same was replied by the Respondent No.1 Insurance Co. Thus, the complainant approached the Forum.

2. Respondent No.1 appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that the deceased Raju had left Rajura for Nagpur and as he did not come back, missing complaint was filed on 23.3.2002. It is contended that in the Police Investigation, it was found that Raju committed suicide in Gandhi Sagar Lake in Nagpur. It is contended that the said lake is not a public place for swimming therefore, there is no question that deceased Raju to go to the lake except for the purposes of committing suicide only. It is contended that the post-mortem report shows cause of death “drowning”. There was no injury on body of the deceased. It was not an accidental death and so it was suicidal death. They have rightly repudiated the claim. .

3. The Respondent No.2 also appeared before the Forum and filed Written Statement.

4. The Forum below, after going through papers and hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. However, the Forum directed the Respondent No.1 to pay Rs. 5,000 for vague repudiation of claim in question.

5. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal order of the Forum, complainants came in appeal.

6. Notices were issued to the respondents as well as appellant. Learned Counsel C.B. Pande appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1, Mr. V.M. Linge appeared for appellant and none for Respondent No.2.

7. We heard both the Counsel at sufficient length. Learned Counsel Mr. Linge submitted that there is absolutely no evidence produced by the Respondent No.2 to show that the deceased Raju committed suicide. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Forum erred in relying on the investigator’s report of Respondent No.1-Insurance Company. The investigation report does not say that the death of Raju was suicidal death. On the suspicion of suicidal death has been shown in it.

8. The learned Counsel Mr. Linge submitted that the investigation report of investigator of appellant was based on the investigation carried out by the Police.

9. The learned Counsel Mr. Linge relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in a case of United India Insurance Co Ltd. v. Janabai Maruti Lohar.1

10. The learned Counsel Mr. Linge submitted that investigation report carried out by Police cannot be relied as no witnesses have been examined. He relied on the judgment of Maharashtra State Commission in a case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another v. Ratan Kaur.2 According to him there is absolutely no evid