NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
Ganga Ram Rai —Petitioner
versus
LIC of India & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 722 of 2010
(Against the Order dated 21/12/2009 in Appeal No. 112/2006 of the State Commission Bihar)
Decided on 13.4.2015
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 112/2006 – The Branch Manager, LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Sri Ganga Ram & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant’s/Petitioner’s son Rajiv Kr. Rai obtained three insurance policies with double accident benefit from OP/Respondent. Insured Rajiv Kr. Rai was kidnapped and later on murdered on 17.5.2000 and case was registered with the Police. Complainant’s blood stained clothes were recovered and after investigation, Police submitted charge sheet only under Section 364 IPC as body of deceased was not recovered. It was further submitted that complainants were paid Rs.1,83,422/-, value of the policy by OP, but double accident benefit was not paid. Complainant’s application was disallowed by insurance ombudsman. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay additional amount equal to sum assured and further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission by impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as assured was murdered, leaned District forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal on the ground that murder does not fall within the purview of death by accident; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. It is not disputed that OP has already made payment of sum assured to the complainant on account of death of insured. Perusal of record further reveals that charge sheet under Section 364 IPC was filed as dead body was not recovered.
6. The core question to be decided in this case is whether death caused by murder falls within the purview of accidental death for receiving additional sum or not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Maya Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2008 (3) CPJ 120 (NC) in which it was held as under:
“9. Further, in England law on the subject is settled. In Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol. 25 Pg.307 Para 569, 4th Edition (2003 reissue), as to the meaning of the word ‘accident’, it is stated as under :
“569. Meaning of ‘accident’. The event insured against may be indicated in the policy solely by reference to the phrase ‘injury by accident’ or the equivalent phrase ‘accidental injury’, or it may be indicated as ‘injury caused by or resulting from an accident’. The word ‘accident’, or its adjective ‘accidental’, is no doubt used with the intention of excluding the operation of natural causes such as old age, congenital or insidious disease or the natural progression of some constitutional physical or mental defect; but the ambit of what is included by the word is not entirely clear. It has been said that what is postulated is the intervention of some cause which is brought into operation by chance so as to be fairly describable as fortuitous. The idea of something haphazard is not necessarily inherent in the word; it covers any unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed, or any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence. The test of what is unexpected is whether the ordinary reasonable man would not have expected the occurrence, it being relevant that
Rita Devi (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.