The central legal point established in the judgment is that if murder is committed with a motive, it cannot be termed as an accidental death, impacting the entitlement to accidental benefits under life insurance policies.

ORDER

R.S. Madan, President - This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jind in complaint No. 179/2009 which relates to the insurable benefits in respect of the Life Insurance Policies obtained by Manoj Kumar Batra-husband of the respondent (complainant) since deceased.

2. The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that Manoj Kumar Batra (hereinafter referred to as the Life Assured) had obtained two life insurance policies bearing No. 173390350 for Rs. 52,000 which commenced from 28.7.2002 and No. 171458706 for Rs. 50,000 commenced from 28.5.1997 from the appellant-opposite party. The life assured died on 1.3.2008. According to the complainant her husband was murdered by serving some poisonous substance i.e. Sulphos which was mixed in Coke cold drink. On being submitted claim with respect to the insured amount of the above said two policies, the opposite party paid a sum of Rs. 1,19,868 as basic sum assured plus bonus with respect to policy No. 171458706 and the amount of Rs. 83,837 as basic sum assured plus bonus on account of policy No. 173390350. However, the accidental benefits were denied on the ground that during investigation conducted by the police, it revealed that it was a case of suicide by the life assured and not a murder. Challenging the repudiation of her claim qua accidental benefits, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum with the averments that her husband was murdered.

3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement stating therein that as per the report of standing committee, deceased life assured Manoj Kumar Batra had committed suicide by taking sulphos and report to this effect was filed by the police in the Court of Illaqua Magistrate and thus the accidental benefits were rightly denied to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policies. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

4. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint with the following observations:

"5. Merely because the police has submitted an unfavourable report in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal in criminal case No. 575/09, the dying declaration does not become unreliable. The complainant Smt. Vandana has appeared in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal and has made a statement that she is not satisfied with the report submitted by the police. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was incumbent upon the opposite party to collect sufficient evidence that the life assured has committed suicide. The exclusion clause was to be proved by the opposite party, on the basis of which it can be said that the life assured has committed suicide. We are of the considered view that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party is improper so the same is set aside. The complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to make the payment of remaining amount of Rs. 2,46,295 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 10.8.2009 till payment along with a sum of Rs. 1,000 as costs."

Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

From the pleadings of the parties, following questions for determination have arisen before this Commission:

(i) Whether the death of the Life Assured Manoj Kumar Batra occurred due to suicide or it was a case of murder by serving some poisonous substance in the cold drinks

(ii) If the death of the life assured Manoj Kumar Batra occurred due to murder, whether the complainant is entitled for accidental benefits qua the Life Insurance Policies taken by the Life Assured from the appellant-opposite party

6. On behalf of the appellant-opposite party it has been a