The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition under Section 12 filed by one Smt. Bulan Adhikari, Wife of Late Sanatan Adhikari, resident of Dakshin Bishnupur, P.O. - Ital, P.S- Raiganj, Dist.- Uttar Dinajpur which was registered as Consumer Case No. 37/17 in this Forum.

The fact of the case is that during the life time the husband of the complainant (Sanatan Adhikari) purchased two policies from Life Insurance Corporation of India being policy No-456951509 and 458019282.

From the petition of complaint it is revealed that Bulan Adhikari is the wife of deceased Sanatan Adhikari and she is the nominee of the said two policies as well as the legal heirs of the said two policies.

Ultimately, on 27/10/2014 the husband of the complainant (Sanatan Adhikari) died due to electrocution. After the incident the said deceased (Sanatan Adhikari) was brought to Sudha Nursing Home for treatment. After examined by the doctor of the said Nursing Home, the doctor declared that the said patient Sanatan Adhikari already died by heart attack due to electrocution.

It has been further stated that after the death of Sanatan Adhikari the complainant (Smt. Bulan Adhikari) is a nominee as well as legal heirs and the complainant is entitled to get the insured amount in respect of the two policies and the complainant filed the claim along with all necessary documents.

But on 30/12/2016 the O.P (L.I.C) issued a letter intimating that the husband of the complainant was suffering from Pulmonary Tuberculosis from 04/01/2014 and the treatment of TB was started from 07/01/2014. The policy was done by suppressing the fact that the deceased was suffering from different ailments and the policy was done with intent to mislead the corporation for which the L.I.C repudiated the claim.

It has been further stated in the petition of complaint that at the time of purchasing the policy being No-458019282 in the year 2014 the husband of the complainant was in good health and the husband of the complainant did not conceal any material facts and paid the premium, thereafter the L.I.C issued the said policy. Due to willful and gross negligence and deficiency in service of the L.I.C the petitioner / complainant did not get the assured amount with a double benefit to the accidental death of her husband.

But the cause of action arose on 30/12/2016 when the O.P repudiated the claim and the complainant (Smt. Bulan Adhikari) has claimed of Rs.700000/- in respect of policy No-458019282 and including all double benefit  and with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death of Sanatan Adhikari. The complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.5000/- for litigation cost.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps. 1 and 2 by filing W.V denying all the material allegations as leveled against the L.I.C contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable.

The definite defence case is that the deceased Sanatan Adhikari died by electrocution and the husband of the complainant was not brought to Sudha Nursing Home and the Sudha Nursing Home did not declare the death by electrocution. In this case no F.I.R, no Post Mortem report has been filed. The further defence case is that at the time of purchasing the policy No-458019282 the deceased Sanatan Adhikari was suffering from different ailments and suppressing such facts and the policy was procured. As such the L.I.C repudiated the claim.

In order to prove the case the complainant Smt. Bulan Adhikari was herself examined as PW1 and she was cross examined. She filed documents by way of firisti. One Abdul Zobbar was also examined as PW2. On the other hand the O.P was examined one Rezaul Hoque as OPW1 and also examined Dr. D.N.Majumdar as O.P.W2.

Now the point for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from this forum or not?

          D E C I S I O N  W I T H  R E A S O N S:

 The complainant will have to prove that her husband (Sanatan Adhikari) died by heart attack due to electrocution. This is main cause for getting the amount as prayed for. Now it is to be considered how far the complainant has been able to prove such fact. The death certificate has been filed by the complainant to show that her husband Sanatan Adhikari died on 27/10/2014. So, there is no dispute as to the point that Sanatan Adhikari is dead. Now, the question arises whether Sanatan Adhikari died by heart attack due to electrocution. But no Post Mortem report, no F.I.R has been filed by the complainant to show that Sanatan Adhikari died by electrocution. As death by electrocution is not a natural death, it is regarded as unnatural death for which Post Mortem report is required to be done and the Post Mortem report cannot be done automatically. It should be done from the Police Station. But no information was lodged to the Police Station by the complainant or any other person to show that Sanatan Adhikari died by electrocution. How this forum will come to a conclusion that the husband of the complainant died by electrocution. Though, the complainant tried to prove such fact on the basis of a death certificate granted by Dr. D.N.Majumdar who happens to be the owner of the said nursing home. But that certificate has not been proved by the complainant. On the other hand the O.P L.I.C had examined Dr. D.N.Majumdar who on dock before this forum has stated that he did not issue any certificate as regard to the death certificate of Sanatan Adhikari. The evidence of a doctor and the owner of the nursing home is quite believable as because the doctor in open forum has stated that he did not issue any certificate in favour of Sanatan Adhikary as regard to death of Sanatan Adhikari. The doctor brought the original register and on perusal of the original register it is found that no patient in the name of Sanatan Adhikari was admitted to the nursing home on 27-10-2014 and the doctor did not issue any certificate. The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant submitted that the doctor who adduced evidence on behalf of L.I.C was the panel doctor of L.I.C in the year 1974. This is why the doctor is adducing evidence in favour of the L.I.C. but such argument is not believable as because the document does not speaks in favour of the complainant that the deceased was admitted to Sudha Nursing Home. The Xerox copy of the death certificate was placed to the doctor who categorically denied that he did not issue any certificate in favour of Sanatan Adhikari. The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant argued that L.I.C made payment in respect of another policy to the tune of Rs.62000/-(Sixty two thousand). It is not understood what prevented the L.I.C not to make payment of another policy. The payment of Rs.62000/-(Sixty two thousand) is not the subject matter of the present case. In reply the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P argued every case is to be decided in its own merit. Whether, the complainant has been able to prove that the husband of the complainant died due to electrocution. According to the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P the complainant has failed to prove that Sanatan Adhikari died due to the electrocution. This Forum is also in the same view of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of O.P that complainant has failed to prove that the husband of complainant died due to electrocution. As regard to payment of one policy, the Ld. Lawyer of O.P argued that as per Section 45 of Insurance Act, the Insurance Company is empowered to make an enquiry. On enquiry it is revealed that the complainant suppressed the material fact this is why the L.I.C did not make any payment. As regard to earlier policy it was an old policy, this is why the L.I.C make payment without any enquiry. It is fact that as per amended provision of Section 45 of Insurance Act, the Insurance Company can make an enquiry if the death is occurred within the period as specified in Section 45 of Insurance Act.

 So, considering on such facts and circumstances it is found that the complainant hopelessly failed to prove that her husband (Sanatan Adhikari) died by electrocution. As such the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or any other relief as prayed for.

C.F. paid is correct,

Hence, it is

                                ORDERED:

 That the complainant case being No.CC-37/17 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.