Burden of proof lies on the insurer to establish suicide for claim repudiation, which must be backed by compelling evidence.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was the 4^th respondent in O.P.No.70/2024 on the files of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Kozhikode. The original petition was submitted by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim made by them, seeking compensation for the death of the husband of the 1^st respondent/father of the respondents 2 and 3. The claim was raised in connection with the death of Sri.Premraj, the husband of the 1^st respondent and father of the respondents 2 and 3, in an accident that occurred on 12.11.2019, when he was hit by a train while he was crossing the rail track in front of the West Hill Railway Station. Even though a claim was raised before the petitioner, based on the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by the petitioner and the 6^th respondent, it was repudiated by the petitioner and the 6^th respondent on the ground that, the deceased was a person having mental illness and he had committed suicide.

2. According to the petitioner, as per the terms and conditions in the policy, death by suicide is not covered under the policy, and hence they are not liable to pay compensation. The said repudiation was challenged before the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services and Ext.P1 is the original petition submitted by the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner appeared and filed a Ext.P2 written statement reiterating the stand taken while repudiating the policy. The Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services proceeded to determine the original petition and the evidence adduced by the parties consist of Exts.A1 to A10 on the side of the applicants and Exts.B1 to B5 on the side of the respondents.

3. After evaluating the evidence, the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services came to a finding that, the petitioner failed to establish that, the death was due to suicide and hence allowed the original petition, directing the petitioner and the

6^th respondent to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services .

4. I have heard Smt.P.A. Reziya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.P. Pradeep, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 and Smt.K.S. Santhi, learned Standing Counsel for the 6^th respondent.

5. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the final report submitted by the Police, which contains the statement of close relatives of the deceased would indicate that the deceased was suffering from mental illness, had undergone treatment for the same, and the death occurred due to suicide. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, despite such specific conclusion in the final report and the inquest report submitted by the Police as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5, the same was not considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services and an award is passed. Besides, it was also highlighted that, the First Information Statement, based on which the crime was registered by the Police was given by none other than the brother of the deceased himself and from the said document also, it is evident that it is a case of suicide.

6. However, after carefully going through the observations made by the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services, I find that, it does not warrant any interference. This is particularly because, the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services came to a definite conclusion after evaluating the evidence that, the petitioner failed to establish the case of suicide by adducing any positive evidence. On car