ORDER

M.B. Shah, President - The State Commission held that death of the insured was due to murder and, therefore, the heirs of the insured were not entitled to any benefit under the policy. Hence, allowed the Appeal and dismissed the complaint. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied by judgment and order dated 21.5.2007 passed in Appeal No. 2675/03 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., the original complainant has filed this Revision Petition.

2. It is evident from the FIR dated 17.7.1996 that the insured went to the shop of one, Jagdish, for purchasing Bidi. Upon being refused, some altercation between the insured and the shopkeeper took place. On the next day, the brother of the shopkeeper shot the insured at his forehead with his country made revolver, which resulted in the death of the insured. Before the State Commission, the Insurance Company contended that the death of the insured occurred due to murder and, hence, the Insurance Company was not bound to pay the sum assured.

3. Hence, the only question which requires consideration in this Revision Petition is' whether the death caused due to murder of the insured can be held to be accidental death

4. In our view, it is absurd to contend that, a murder of an insured would not be treated as an accidental death in view of the terms of the policy. The relevant terms of the said Money Back Policy is as under :

"10(b) Death of the life assured To pay an additional sum equal to the Death Benefit under this policy, if the Life Assured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and such injury shall within 180 days of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes result in the death of the life assured. However, such additional sum payable in respect of all the policies taken under this plan and under Bima Kiran Plan (Table No. 111) on the same life to which this benefit will apply shall not exceed Rs. 5,00,000.

The Corporation shall not be liable to pay the additional sum referred in (a) or (b) above, if the disability of the death of the life assured shall

(i) be caused by intentional self injury, attempted suicide, insanity or immortality or whilst the life assured in under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drug or narcotic or .................

(iv) result from the life assured committing breach of law, or........................

5. The main part of the policy specifically provides that if the life assured sustains any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward violent and visible means, which results in the death of the life assured, heirs would be entitled to get accidental benefit. It is apparent that in case of murder, bodily injury is caused by outward violent and visible means which results in the death.

6. Further Exclusion Clauses would not be applicable in such cases.

7. In case of murder of assured, Clause (i) which provides that if the death is caused by intentional self injury, attempted suicide or insanity, etc. would not be applicable. Secondly, Exclusion Clause (iv) would also not be applicable because it has not resulted from any breach of law committed by the life assured. The policy does not exclude death due to murder for any reason. In that set of circumstances, exclusion clause which deprives the complainant from accidental benefit would not be applicable in the present case.

8. Further, it is to be stated that the Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim on the ground that the death of the assured was due to murder, but solely on the ground that before taking the insurance policy, the insured, who was a Grade-IV employee in Nav Bharat College in Ghaziabad, suppressed the fact that he had taken some leave on medical ground. The so-called leave on medical ground has no connection with the murder of the assured.

9. Further, in England Law on the subject is settled. In Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. 25