Date of Filing : 17-09-2008 Date of Order : 16-07-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.No.175/08 Dated this, the 16th day of July 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER B.Shripathi Venkatramana Bhat, S/o.Gopalakrishna Bhat, } Complainant Mugeru House, katukukke Village, Po.Katukukke, Kasaragod.Dt. (Adv.S.Mahalinga, Kasaragod The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, } Opposite party Kasaragod. (Adv.A.B.Nair, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT This complaint is filed by the father of deceased Keshava Kumar against the opposite party on account of the rejection of his claim on the ground that the insured had committed suicide. According to the complainant the death was due to an accident 2. According to opposite party the death of the insured Keshava Kumar was not an accident and it was a suicide and in such case the opposite party is not liable to pay double accident benefit to the complainant as per policy conditions 10(2)(b)(1). The complainant was entitled for Rs.1,48,000/- and after deducting unpaid premia and interest an amount of Rs.1,39,719/- has been paid to the complainant. Since there is no deficiency in service the opposite party prays for the dismissal of complaint. 3. Complainant the father of the insured late Keshava Kumar filed affidavit as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 marked. For opposite party Sri. V.P. Gopalan the Manager, Legal & HPI Department, L.I.C. of India filed affidavit and Exts B1 to B4 marked. Both sides heard and documents perused. 4. Ext.B1 is the copy of the FIR of Badiadka Police in Crime No.103/2008. The statement in the said FIR is given by the complainant himself. In his statement it is stated that his son Keshava Kumar the insured herein has committed suicide due to his mental depression because of not getting an alliance for marriage. On the basis of his F.I.S the police lodged FIR and investigated in to the matter and filed a final report before the JFCM, Kasaragod stating that Keshava Kumar committed suicide by jumping in to the check dam. Hence according to opposite party this being a suicide and not an accident, the nominees of the insured are not entitled for the accident benefits as stipulated in the policy. 5. Eventhough the learned counsel for the complainant Sri.Mahalinga relying on the decisions of Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Gurudev Kaur reported in III (2002) CPJ (134) (NC) and the decisions of MPSCDRC in the case of LIC & Anr V. Smt. Usha Jain reported in I (2003) CPJ 100 vehemently tried to maintain that the insured is entitled for the double accident benefits as envisaged in the policy we are unable to accept his contention since in this case the complainant himself lodged the FIR before the Badiadka Police with respect to the reason for the death of his son Keshava Kumar as suicide. There is no reason to disbelieve the said statement contained in FIR. - The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the ruling reported in 1997(1)KLJ 369 has held:
“The courts have treated certified copies of FIR as public document, tender of certified copy there of satisfied the test of proof in regard there to and what is more important in the context is that the concerned satisfaction is with regard to the contents there of in view of the provisions of Sec 77 of the Evidence Act., Reference to the statutory provisions of Sec.80 would show that the presumption is referable to the document being genuine to any statement in regard there to having been made by the person signing it to be true and further such a statement has been duly taken and recorded by the officer-in-charge of the police station”
7. The complainant herein who himself lodged Ext.B1 FIR has no case that he was forced to make the said statement under any compelling circumstances. 8. Therefore it is clear that the death of the insured Keshava Kumar was a suicide and Ext.B1 is a report prepared in due course. So the present case set up by the complainant that the death of insured Keshava kumar was due to an accident is only an after thought and it is alleged only to suit the situation. 9 Therefore as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party Sri.A.B. Nair, in view of clause 10 (2)(b)(1) of the policy the LIC is not liable to pay additional sum as referred in the policy i.e. accident benefits since the insured committed suicide. In view of the above the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.Copy of policy A2. Copy of Post-mortem certificate A3.13-02-08 repudiation letter. B1.Photocopy of FIR Crime No.103/08. B2. Photocopy of Final Report. Crime No.103/08 B3. Receipt issued by OP to complainant. B4. Original policy . Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
