IMPORTANT POINT
Planned and intentional murder would come under category of murder simplicitor and it could not be accidental murder.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 12.04.2017, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 169/2016, Sanrakshita Kumari vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 29.03.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nalanda in Consumer Complaint No. 72/2013, filed by the present petitioner, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant Sanrakshita Kumari, Rakesh Kumar took a life insurance policy alongwith some other policies from the opposite party (OP), LIC of India with accidental benefit, in which the petitioner was made his nominee. The insured Rakesh Kumar was killed by some miscreants on 10.03.2011 and an FIR No. 52/2011 was instituted at the Alamganj police station. The complainant, the widow of the deceased, lodged insurance claim under various policies taken by the husband alongwith the necessary documents. The OP LIC paid the sum insured under the said policies alongwith vested bonus, but refused to pay the accidental benefit under the said policies. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, claiming accidental benefit (double benefit) amounting to Rs. 4.59 lakhs alongwith interest @ 15% per annum on the said amount, from the date of death till realisation and a compensation for mental agony etc. as Rs. 50,000/-.

3. The claim was resisted by the LIC by filing a reply before the District Forum, saying that the matter regarding the grant of double accident benefit was pending with them for want of final judgment of the criminal court in the case. As per procedure, the final verdict of the courts was required to be studied, so as to find out whether it was a planned murder or otherwise. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, stated as follows in the orders passed by them on 29.03.2015:-

“8. Under aforementioned circumstances, it appears that the insured apprehended his death and accordingly, he had informed the local police. It further appears that dominant intention of accused was to kill the insured. Thus it is clear that the murder of insured was planned and intentional and it is murder simplicitor and is not accidental murder.

9. It is admitted fact that the case relating to murder of insured is still pending in the competent court and OPs are waiting for final verdict of the court in order to settle the accidental claim of complainant. Under afore mentioned circumstances of this case, the complainant may raise her accidental claim after decision of competent sessions court. With aforesaid observations, the present complaint petition is hereby disposed of. The parties to bear their own cost. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.”

4. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, but the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5. During preliminary hearing before us, the learned counsel stated that the main issue to be decided in the present case was whether the death of the insured, caused due to his murder, could come under the category of ‘accident’ and if that was so, whether the assured was entitled to get the accident benefit under the insurance policy. The learned counsel vehemently argued that as held by this Commission in the case, Maya Devi vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, as reported in III (2008) CPJ 120 (NC), every murder comes under the definition of accident and hence, the complainant was entitled to get the accident benefit under the policy. The learned