Haryana

StateCommission

A/475/2015

LIFE INSURANCE CORP.OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MURTI DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.MAHAJAN

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      475 of 2015

Date of Institution:      25.05.2015

Date of Decision :       28.04.2016

 

1.     Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh.

2.     The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sector-15, Sonipat.

3.     The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Karnal.

4.     The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Bharti, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

1.      Smt. Murti Devi wife of Balbir Singh

2.      Balabir Singh son of Maru Ram, Both Residents of House No.39B/13, Nandwani Nagar, Sonipat.

                                      Respondents/Complainants

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Sudhir Rana, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

By filing this appeal, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short ‘LIC’)-Opposite Parties, have challenged the order dated April 3^rd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.32 of 2014.

2.      Sant Lal-since deceased (hereinafter referred to as ‘the insured’), purchased a Life Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-1) from the LIC on December 7^th, 1999. The policy being back dated commenced from October 28^th, 1999 and was to mature on October 28^th, 2024. The sum assured was Rs.5.00 lacs.

3.      On February 13^th, 2000, the insured died while boarding the train at Railway Station, Sonipat. Murti Devi and Balbir Singh-complainants, filed claim with the LIC but the LIC did not pay the sum assured. The complainants filed complaint (Exhibit C-8), earlier to the instant complaint, before the District Forum. The LIC contested the said complaint taking plea that copy of F.I.R., Death Certificate and Port Mortem Report (PMR) were not supplied by the complainants and for that reason the sum assured was not paid.  The District Forum vide order dated August 13^th, 2012 (Annexure R-13) disposed of the said complaint directing the complainants to submit the required documents to the LIC and the LIC was directed to settle the claim.  The complainants furnished the documents to the LIC but the claim was repudiated vide letter dated March 7^th, 2013 (Mark-B) on the ground that the insured had committed suicide, so the LIC was not liable to pay the sum assured. Aggrieved thereof, the complainants filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.  

5.      The LIC contested complaint by filing reply wherein it reiterated the fact stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.      After evaluating the pleadings and the evidence of the parties the District Forum vide impugned order accepted the complaint and directed the LIC to pay the sum assured alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from October 4^th, 2012, that is, the date on which documents were furnished by the complainants to the LIC.   

7.      Learned counsel for the LIC has assailed the order on the ground that the life assured committed suicide within one year from the date of commencement of the policy, so the complainants were not entitled for the sum assured because the policy became void as per Clause 6. In support, reliance was placed upon the proceedings conducted by the Police under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Annexure R-5).

8.      The report of the Police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. can not be taken into consideration to decide the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act because the proceedings by the Police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. are limited to unnatural death. No evidence has been led by the LIC to prove that the insured had jumped before the moving train to commit suicide. Death having occurred by falling from a moving train cannot be construed ‘suicide’. So, the LIC wrongly repudiated complainants’ claim to escape its liability to pay the sum assured to the complainants.  Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

9.      Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 28.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL