Haryana

StateCommission

A/730/2015

LIFE INSURANCE CORP.OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIRMALA - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.MAHAJAN

28 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      730 of 2015

Date of Institution:      04.09.2015

Date of Decision :       28.09.2015

 

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

2.      Life Insurance Corporation of India Jeevan Jyoti, B 23-24, District Shopping Complex, Jind, District Jind, through its Branch Manager.

3.      Life Insurance Corporation of India, 489 Model Town, Karnal, through Divisional Manager.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Smt. Nirmala w/o late Shri Jai Bhagwan @ Chandan s/o Sh. Shankar, Resident of Village Manana, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                      

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

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated July 17^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Jind, in complaint No.149 of 2013.

2.      Jai Bhagwan (since deceased)-husband of Nirmala-complainant-respondent, purchased Life Insurance Policy (Annexure A-4) from Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC)-Opposite Parties, on October 26^th, 2010 of Rs.1,50,000/-. On July 26^th, 2011, the insured became unconscious due to inhaling pesticide while spraying the same in his fields. He was taken to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, (PGIMS) Rohtak, where he died on July 27^th, 2011. Post Mortem Examination of the deceased was conducted in PGIMS, Rohtak, vide Port Mortem Report No.PMR/875/11 dated July 27^th, 2011. Inquest Proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were completed by the Police vide Daily Diary No.26 dated 27.07.2011. The complainant being nominee and legal heir of the deceased, filed claim with the LIC but the same was repudiated. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The LIC-Opposite Parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that the deceased committed suicide by taking sulphos (poison) as per claim form No.3816 of PGIMS, Rohtak.  Since, the insured committed suicide within one year from the date of obtaining the policy, the claim was rightly repudiated.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint directing the opposite parties-LIC, to pay death claim to the complainant.

5.      Learned counsel for the LIC-opposite parties has argued that as per report of the Police, the cause of death was due to suicide by consuming sulphos.

6.      The contention raised on behalf of the LIC-opposite parties is not tenable. In the report of ‘Department of Forensic Medicine, PGIMS, Rohtak, (Annexure A-6) the cause of death as per Inquest Report has been mentioned ‘due to inhaling of poisonous medicine’. There is nothing on the record to show that the deceased committed suicide by consuming sulphos, as alleged by the LIC-opposite parties. Death due to accidental inhaling of poisonous gas can not be treated voluntarily inhaling and thus amounting to suicide. There is no evidence on file that the Life Assured committed suicide by voluntarily consuming poison. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum does not call for any interference.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 

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

 

Announced: 28.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL