O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President:

Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

Petitioner is the wife of deceased R. Gopinath, who was insured with the opposite party Life Insurance Corporation of India. According to the petitioner while the deceased was working as Head of the Department of Physical Education, N.S.S Hindu College, Changanacherry. Petitioner was hit down by the train, Jayanthi Janatha Express near to Kattakuzhy, Changanacherry and died on the spot. Changanacherry police registered a Crime as Crime No 896/03 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. After the investigation the police filed the final report under section 173 of Cr.P.C stating the cause of death as an accident. The petitioner, wife of the deceased, submitted a claim to the opposite party's claiming double accident benefit inrespect of the above said policies. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that deceased committed suicide within one year from the date of the policy. So, as per the policy

-2-

condition petitioner is not entitled for the amount covered by the policy. The petitioner states that repudiation of the claim of the petitioner is a clear deficiency of service . So, he claims for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per policy No. 391934627 and Rs. 2,00,000/- as amount due as per rejection for double accident benefit policies and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation with 12% interest along with cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party contented that the petitioner is not a consumer coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Further they contented that since the

policy holder has committed suicied by jumping in front of the Jayanthi Janath Express and committed suicide within one year from the date of commencement of the policy. As per the policy condidtion the policy has been become void. So, according to the opposite party petitioner is not entitled to get any amount. The Changanacherry police submitted final report in the above said crime without conducting proper investigation. So, the said report is not binding on the opposite party. The finding of the police is without any basis. They further contented that even if it is not a suicide the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount because death of the life assured was due to result of an illegal act. As per law trespassing in the railway track is illegal and is an offence punishable under law. So, the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the petition with their cost.

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii) Reliefs and costs.

-3-

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

The opposite party produced policy certificate along with conditions of the policy said document is marked as Ext. B2. As clause VI of the conditions of Ext. B2. The policy shall be void if the life assured commit suicide before the expiry of one year from the date of the policy and the corporation will not entertain any claim by virtue of this policy. The opposite party produced the final report submitted by the Circle Inspector of police, Vakathanam and said document is mared as Ext. A4. In Ext. A4 it is stated that death of the deceased was due to “suicide run over by train”. The insurance policy between the insurer and insured represents the contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertake to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of the risks covered by the insurance policy. The terms of agreement have to be strictly construed to determine to the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured can not claim anything morethan what is covered by the insurance policy. The nationalised insurance company in India are holding public money. What they have to deal with is public fund. They are accountable to the public fund every pie of it. So, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service in repudiating the claim of the petitioner. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

-4-

Point No. 2

In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is allowed.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of October, 2008.