R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises an important question as to whether death caused by a dog bite can be said to be death caused by an accident so as to make the Life Insurance Corporation liable to pay an additional sum equal to the sum assured under the accident benefit clause of the policy.

( 2 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-1-1998 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patan in Special Civil Suit No. 179 of 1994 to the extent that it disallows the additional payment under the accident benefit clause to the appellant-original plaintiff, who filed the suit to recover the dues under the two policies which were taken out to insure the life of his son Vikram for Rs. 50,000. 00 each on 1-2-1989 and 28-3-1989. These policies contained an accident benefit clause, which entailed payment of an additional sum equal to the sum assured under the policy, if the death was caused as a result of an accident as contemplated by that clause. On this basis, appellant had claimed Rs. 1 lac under each of the two policies, which are at Exhibits 37 and 38. According to the appellant-plaintiff, his son Vikram was bitten by a rabid dog on 18-4-1989, for which he was hospitalised and while under treatment, he died on 28-4-1989. On the death of his son, the appellant put up a claim with the Life Insurance Corporation, but the claim was repudiated on 26-10-1990. The appellant, therefore, carried his grievance to the zonal Office, but with no avail. He, therefore, filed a suit claiming Rs. 2 lacs under the two policies and Rs. 54,000. 00 by way of interest at the rate of 12% from 29-4-1989 to 29-7-1991. as also Rs. 2. 500. 00 being the amount of expenses incurred by him.

( 3 ) THE respondent-L. I. C. by its written statement Ex. 12 contested the claim, contending that the deceased had not disclosed material facts regarding the state of his health and the medical treatment, which was taken by him and therefore, the l. I. C. , was justified in repudiating the claim. It was contended that the contract of insurance had become null and void, in view of the suppression about the state of his health by the deceased. It was also contended that the death was suicidal.

( 4 ) THE trial Court held that the deceased Vikram had paid the premiums in respect of the two policies in question, which were of Rs. 50,000. 00 each, taken out for assuring his life. It was also held that Vikram had died on 28-4-1989 due to dog bite, which he suffered on 18-4-1989. The trial Court held that the death was caused due to cardiac respiratory failure that had resulted because of rabies caused due to a bite by a rabid dog and that the death was not suicidal, as was tried to be contended by the L. I. C. The trial Court, however, found that the ingredients of the accident benefit clause were not established because the injury and resultant death caused by a dog bite cannot be said to have been caused by an accident, as contemplated by that clause. It was, therefore, held that the appellant was not entitled to recover the additional sum payable under the accident benefit clause.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that death of vikram was proved to have been caused by bite given by a rabid dog. The medical evidence consisting of the deposition of Dr. Mansingh Chaudhary at Ex. 50, and the medical case papers at Ex. 51 and Ex. 52 clearly showed that the death was caused due to rabies caused by a dog bite. It was submitted that the evidence clearly negatived the theory of death being caused by suicide. The vicera, which was sent for examination clearly showed that no poison was consumed by the deceased and the report of witness Poonambhai G. Kachhiya at Ex. 62, who is an employee of l. I. C. , as admitted by him, was based on conjectures drawn from the fact that the deceased had an unhappy married life. The Counsel contended that the meaning of the word accident was wide enough to include such mishap that had oc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document