BALDEV SINGH MALHI vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, which in turn reversed the order of the District Forum.

THE facts in brief, which led the complainant to approach the District Forum are as follows : The complainant''s wife was insured with the opposite party Insurance Company under the group personal accident insurance claim vide Policy No. 4635180201297 obtained by the Punjabi University, Patiala, i.e. opposite party No. 2. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant''s wife died on 7.3.1997 as she had consumed poisonous substance. The complainant, who is the beneficiary under the contract of insurance, lodged a claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the grounds that the insured had attempted suicide by taking poisonous substance as a result of which all the benefits under the policy were not available to the nominee. A report was lodged with the Police Post at Bahadurgarh and police party went to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana and recorded statement of the deceased on 9.3.1997, to the effect that she had taken poisonous substance by mistake, i.e., accident by picking up of wrong bottle in place of her medicine bottle. Both were lying side by side on the same rack. Hence it was contended before the District Forum by the complainant that the death had occurred due to accident. The contention of the opposite party before the District Forum was that the complainant''s wife was issueless and remained under depression for a number of years. It is also contended by the opposite party that the deceased had died due to cardiac arrest and cardiac arrest does not fall within the ambit of personal accident policy and thus the policy had been rightly repudiated. The District Forum had taken into consideration the evidence produced by both the parties. The District Forum had also based its decision on the two reports of the Investigator, the first report dated 31.3.1998 wherein the Investigator had reported that "no evidence of attempt to commit suicide could be found" and further opined that "the deceased had taken some poisonous substance on 9.3.1997 mistaking the same to be the medicine she used to take regularly". Again on being asked, the Investigator gave a further report that his previous report was based on the statement made by the deceased to the Head Constable, Mr. Palwinder Singh, in which report the Investigator mentioned certain factors suggestive of suicide by the deceased. The District Forum upon adverting to the evidence placed before it by both the parties, especially the two reports given by the Investigator and the death certificate issued by D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, which states that the deceased had died due to cardiac respiratory arrest, came to the conclusion that this is a case of attempted suicide and that her death cannot be attributed to accidental death. The District Forum had also adverted to the case law produced before it by the learned Counsel for the complainant and held that the death of the complainant was not accidental but a suicidal one and dismissed the complaint.

Feeling not satisfied with the order of the District Forum the complainant went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission in its order held that there was nothing on record to show that the deceased had attempted suicide; that the Insurance Company had not led any direct evidence to prove that the deceased had consumed insecticides to commit suicide except for the subsequent report of the Investigator. The reports of the Investigator are contradictory to each other. In view of the above discussion, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was accidental and had not resulted from suicide and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount to the complainant. The Insurance Company was also saddled with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

STILL not satisfied with the order of the State Commission the complainant has come in revision before us with the claim for award of interest at 24% on the above amount so awarded by the State Commission from the Insurance Company. On 19th March, 2002, when the matter was listed for admission hearing, we had admitted the matter limited to the point as to whether the petitioner/complainant is entitled to interest and at what rate. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission along with the other documents annexed to the revision petition including the two contradictory reports given by the Investigator. We are of the firm opinion that the State Commission is right in rejecting the second report of the Investigator and the reasoning given, i.e. where two investigation reports are there, contradictory to each other, the first one has to be taken into account. This is based on well-settled principles of law.

THE contention of the petitioner/complainant before us is that the State Commission had not considered his plea for award of interest on the amount so awarded and that he is entitled to interest at 24%. Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case and finding force in the contention of the complainant for award of interest, we allow the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interest and award the same at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount awarded by the State Commission. THE interest will run from the end of two months from the date of submission of the Investigator''s first report, 31.3.1998 till the date of payment, and direct the Insurance Company to make the payments within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In view of the above discussion the revision petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.