Punjab

Sangrur

CC/151/2017

Rma Bhullar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vinay Kumar Jindal

30 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  151

                                                Instituted on:    11.04.2017

                                                Decided on:       30.10.2017

 

 

Rma Bhullar aged 35 years wife of Late Sh. Hardeep Singh @ Deepa Bhullar son of late Shri Nirbhai Singh R/O #278, Ward No.2A, Near Over Bridge, Janta Nagar, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri(148024) District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Axis Bank, through its Branch Manager, Dhuri Pind Road, Near SBOP Bank, Dhuri (148024) Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

2.             Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Area Manager, SCO 147, Firoz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana 141001 Punjab.

3.             Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Managing Director, Regd. & Head Office GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerewada, Pune (411014).

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1  :       Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.2  :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Rma Bhullar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the marriage of the complainant Smt. Rma Bhullar was solemnized with Hardeep Singh Bhullar @ Deepa in the year 2004 and on the marriage of the complainant and Hardeep Bhullar, one male child, namely, Yuvraj Singh Bhullar born on 23.11.2015.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that on 20.7.2016 at about 6.00 AM, the complainant was worshipping as per her daily routine and husband of the complainant was cleaning his licensed revolver on the first floor room and suddenly, the complainant herd the noise of fire of bullet and she immediately went to the room, where the husband of the complainant Hardeep Singh Bhullar was cleaning his revolver and saw that suddenly the bullet of the revolver hit on the temporal of the husband of the complainant accidentally, resulting his death at the spot, of which General Diary No.13 dated 20.7.2016 was recorded and as per the investigation, Shri Hardeep Singh Bhullar died due to cleaning of his licensed revolver suddenly and accidentally.   Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant along with her mother in law went to the OP number 1 to see the saving bank account of the complainant and as such the OP number 1 told the complainant that the husband of the complainant Shri Hardeep Singh Bhullar had taken an insurance policy of Rs.1,00,000/- through the bank and supplied the copy of the insurance policy.  After receiving the copy of the insurance policy, the complainant came to know that she is entitled to get Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of her husband Shri Hardeep Singh Bhullar and further entitled to get 10% of sum insured i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- for children education bonus.  Thereafter the complainant lodged the claim with the OP number 2 and 3 and supplied all the requisite documents, but the OP number 2 and 3 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 4.11.2016 on the ground that on detailed scrutiny of the documents, the claim does not fall under the purview of the policy because as per the forensic medicine opinion, it is not the case of accidental firing which means it is a suicide case. It is stated further that the complainant had cordial relations with her husband and all the situation was very well from all side, then the question of committing suicide by Shri Hardeep Singh Bhullar does not arise at all.  Lastly, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along wtih interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of education bonus for the child of the complainant and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by Ops number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that such type of dispute requires cross examination of the witnesses and the same cannot be decided in a summary manner and only the civil court can decide whether the death of Hardeep Singh Bhullar was accidental or the same is a case of suicide.  On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and it is denied that on 20.7.2016, the husband of the complainant was cleaning his licensed revolver in the first floor room and died due to that.  It is further denied that the complainant along with his mother in law Smt. Surinder Kaur came to the OP number 1 and took the insurance policy for Rs.10,00,000/-, However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 and 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as voluminous evidence is required, as such the civil court is competent to decide the present case, that the complainant has concealed material facts and has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has filed a false and baseless complaint.  On merits,  it is admitted that the policy in question was issued in the name of Hardeep Singh Bhullar.  It is further admitted that after receipt of the claim form and other documents in support of the claim form submitted by the complainant, it is observed that the death of the insured Hardeep Singh Bhullar was due to a fire shot from his revolver, but the OPs observed that there was no police investigation conducted in the said case and the case was closed only on the basis of DDR entry statement made by the complainant stating that the insured had died in the said incident due to accidental death caused by gunshot while cleaning his revolver along with other weapons.  It is further stated that the OP got conducted an internal investigation and after sensing a foul play, referred the post mortem report and other supported documents to SIFS for their observation and opinion on the cause of death of Mr. Hardeep Singh Bhullar. It is stated that after the thorough analysis of the provided documents, the SIFS found that it is not the case of accidental firing and further it is stated that as mentioned in the post mortem report that the position of the entry wound is  the lateral to right eyebrow which in the case of accidental firing while cleaning the revolver is not possible and further it is stated that as victim has the licensed revolver, so he must be knowing all the safety rules. Cleaning the loaded revolver is still in questioned, as it comes under one of the basic safety rules and the revolver cannot fire unless it is cocked, so accidentally cocking and firing simultaneously is not acceptable for a licensed person.  On merits,  it is stated that as per the license produced by the complainant, deceased Hardeep Singh Bhullar had armed license since November 2000 to use 12 bore double barrel gun; 32 bore revolver and 0.32 pistol and using the arms since the last 16 years, as such he was fully aware about the precautions to be kept while cleaning the weapons.  It is stated further that whenever a revolver barrel is being cleaned, the chamber/cylinder is required to open from the top side to create the space for moving the brush inside and outside the barrel. The revolver cannot be cleaned unless the chamber/cylinder of the revolver is opened from the top side, so accidentally simultaneous cocking and firing is not possible and is more over note acceptable for a licensed person unless done with an intention to commit suicide. Similarly, in the case of a pistol, the magazine/chamber in which bullets are  filled is taken out while cleaning the pistol and if the magazine has been taken out from the pistol, the fire cannot take place from the pistol.  It is further stated that the post mortem report clearly points out and indicates that the bullet  entered into the skull of the deceased from the right temporal region and it is most imporable that anybody would raise the lever of his weapon in the process of its cleaning upto the level of temporal region.  At the most, he may bring it close to his eyes to ascertain whether the barrel of the revolver contains any deposit or foreign material or that the holes of the cartridge case contained any corrugation. The deceased was keeping arms for the last 16 years and having good experience of cleaning the weapon and therefore, deceased in that process is supposed to keep the barrel of the revolver pointing opposite to his body. It has been denied that the complainant is entitled to get 10% of the sum insured for children education bonus. It is mentioned in the policy that in case of accidental death of the insured, death amount payable 100% of the sum insured which was Rs.10,00,000/- plus children’s education bonus is Rs.5000/- per child or Rs.10,000/- maximum for two children below the age of 19 or 10% of the capital sum insured.   It is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated and any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-32 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OPs number 2 and 3 has produced Ex.Op2&3/1 to Ex.OP2&3/10 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. 

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted case of the parties that the husband of the complainant obtained a group personal accident policy bearing number OG-13-1203-64-1-00001677 for Rs.10,00,000/- from Ops number 2 and 3 through OP number 1 for the period of five years from 25.8.2012 to 24.8.2017. It is also an admitted fact that on 20.7.2016 during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the deceased husband of the complainant died on 20.7.2016 with the fire of bullet and the complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground that the deceased died an accidental death as he was cleaning his licensed revolver  when suddenly the bullet of the revolver hit on temporal of the husband of the complainant.  But, when the claim was lodged with the Ops number 2 and 3, they repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on detailed scrutiny of the document, the claim does not fall under the purview of the policy and further as per the forensic medicine opinion, it is not the case of accidental firing which means it is a suicide and the suicide is not covered under the insurance policy.  

 

 

8.             Now, it is an admitted fact on record that the husband of the complainant, Shri Hardeep Singh Bhullar died on 20.7.2016 with the fire of bullet. But, the question which arises for determination before us is whether it is an accidental death, suicide death or a murder of Shri Hardeep Singh Bhullar.

 

 

9.             First of all, it is worth mentioning here that the Shri Hardeep Singh Bhullar (referred to as deceased for short) was having an armed license since the year 2000 as is evident from the copy of armed license on record as Ex.C-15.  It is on record that the bullet has hit at the temporal area of the deceased, but since the complainant was having a sufficient experience of having the revolver for the last 16 years and had to adhere the safety rules and the loaded revolver is never cleaned and similarly the magazine/chamber in which bullets are filled is taken out while cleaning the pistol and if the magazine has been taken out from the pistol/revolver, the fire cannot take place from the pistol.  It is further worth mentioning here that the post mortem report clearly indicates that the bullet entered into the skull of the deceased from the right temporal region and it is most improbable that any body would raise the level of his weapon in the process of its cleaning upto the level of temporal region and further at the most, he may bring it close to his eyes to ascertain whether the barrel of the revolver contains any deposit or foreign material or that the holes of the cartridge case contained any corrugation.  A revolver is a small weapon and would normally be cleaned by the forearms in front of the body and at the most close to the chest but under no circumstances, it would be raised above the neck in the process of cleaning and, therefore, there is no way the bullet would have passed through the skull from the right temporal region.    The Hon’ble National Commission in Suman Chugh versus National Insurance Company Limited 2012(4) CPR 389, it has been held to be a case of suicide if the bullet had hit right temple from very close distance and almost horizontally makes it abundantly clear that it was a case of suicide and no sane person would lift his revolver to the level of his temple in the process of cleaning and it was further held that it was a case of deliberate act of committing suicide.   As such, we feel that it is a clear cut lapse on the part of the deceased while cleaning the revolver/pistol. 

 

 

10.           It is worth mentioning here that there is no investigation report of the police has been produced on record by either of the parties. 

 

 

11.           The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that no terms and conditions of the policy were ever supplied to the deceased and in the reply the Ops number 2 and 3 has mentioned that the insurance policy along with its terms and conditions were explained to the insured and accordingly after receipt of the premium, a copy of the policy schedule and its terms and conditions were provided to the insured Mr. Hardeep Singh Bhullar.  In the circumstances, we feel that it is not proved on record that the terms and conditions were not supplied to the deceased, more so when, the complainant has not produced any conclusive proof whether the same were supplied to the deceased or not by the Ops number 2 and 3. If it is assumed that the terms and conditions have not been supplied by the Ops to the deceased, then in that case also, it would have no effect on the case of the complainant.  In M/s. Melcon versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2016(2) CPR 288 (NC), it has been held in para 13 that “we have to see whether it would have made material difference in the incident if the petitioner had known the terms and conditions of the policy beforehand. The facts in the case of Modern Insulators Ltd. versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2000)2 SCC 734,  judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are different than in the present case. In Modern Insulators Ltd. (supra) used tiles were used, which was barred by way of exclusion. In the present case, even if the petitioner had known the terms and conditions of the policy, it would not have made any difference in the accident because it happened suddenly due to short circuiting, which was not something that was done knowing as the case with the Modern Insulators Ltd. (supra).  In all probability, the petitioner would not have refused or returned the policy after knowing the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, we conclude that in the present case, prior information of terms and conditions of the policy would not have made any difference in the occurrence of the incident and in the operation of the exclusion clause therein.”  Further the affidavits produced by the complainant Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 of Smt. Surinder Kaur, Shri Varinder Pal Singh,  Smt. Tanveer Kaur, Shri Jagdev Singh, Shri Sandeep Kumar Tayal, Shri Deepak Kumar,  Shri Sadhu Ram, Shri Ashwani Dhir and of Surinder Kumar, respectively, but all of the affidavits are not at all helpful to the case of the complainant, as all the affidavits only say that during the cleaning of his revolver the deceased died an accidental death, but it no where shows that any one had seen the incident in person and it is only hear say basis affidavits. In the circumstances, we find that the complainant has failed to prove that the deceased died an accidental death as averred in the complaint by the complainant.  

 

 

12.           Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        October 30, 2017.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member