Faquir Singh vs Union of India and others

Dead are also to be respected. It would be against all cannons of a vivilised State to impose stigma on a dead man.

Balwinder Singh son of the petitioner is dead. He was found hanging from a tree. The factum of death is a hard reality. Whether this was

homicidal or suicide is not so. On this matter there is no definite medical opinion. Petitioner, father of the deceased is seeking benefit of Postal

Insurance Scheme which insurance cover was availed of by the deceased. He has been denied this amount. He therefore through the medium of

this petition seeks quashing of communication No. APS MN 129374 L/D APS 7A dated 20111997 and communication No. APS

NM105682L/D APS 7A dated 2021998. By this policy No. APS NM129374L dated 2341994 for Rs. 30,000/ and policy No. APS

NM105682L dated 3131994 for Rs. 20,000/ respectively have been cancelled.

Facts are as under :

Balwinder Singh, son of petitioner, was enrolled in the Scinde Horse (14 Horse) on 21101993. On 1991995, petitioner received an information

that his son is absent without leave from his Unit. One Hav. Dider Singh of the said Unit is said to have visited the house of petitioner on 2391995.

He wanted to know the whereabouts of Balwinder Singh. It is further stated that on this very day on 2391995 dead body of Balwinder Singh was

found hanging 2 Km away from the village of petitioner. This was in advanced state of decomposition. Chief Medical Officer Vijaypur who

conducted the postmortem was of the opinion that the death was caused by asphyxia.

His opinion is as under :

I am of the opinion from above findings and the circumstances that the deceased has died of asphyxia due to rope round the neck causing

cardiorespiratory failure.

The time since death at the time of postmortem is more than two days and less than five days.

The further fact is that son of petitioner had taken two postal life insurance policies. Petitioner made a claim. Application duly attested by the

SubPost Master, Vijaypur was sent to the respondent authorities. However, respondents vide the impugned communications noticed above

cancelled the insurance policies on the ground that the insurer committed suicide within two years of taking the policies.

Petitioner in this petition submits that as the deceased had taken two postal life insurance policies, respondents should pay the insured amount to

him. In para 12 of the petition it is submitted that petitioner was called upon to lodge the claim. This was done vide letter dated 6101997.

Petitioner did submit the claim. Later on vide letter dated 20111997 the petitioner was informed that the policy has been cancelled. It is this

communication which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

The communication dated 6101997 calling upon the petitioner to a submit the claim reads as under :

DEATH CLAIMPLEASE DO NOT DELAY

APSNM129374L/D/ADPSA

Addl. Directorate Gen APS C/o 56 APO

Sh. Faquir Singh

F/o Late Swr Balbinder Singh

Vill Rara

P.O. Vujaypur (GHO)

Ten Samba, J. and K.

Death claim against PLI Policy No. APSNM129374L Held by 15462703 Swr Balbinder Singh.

Sir,

We came to know that the above insurant has expired on 23 Sept., 1995.

We express deep sympathy and condolence on sudden and ultimately death of your beloved son.

Your son took the abovementioned PLI Policy which has been nominated in your name. Claim application (LI9) is enclosed herewith.

Please resubmit the same to this Directorate after completed by your and verified/attested by SubPostmaster Vijaypur.

Please take an immediate action.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/

(V. T. Narayanan)

Major,

DDAPS (PLI).

Stand taken by the respondents in Annexure H is as under :

APSNM12937LD/APS7A

Director,

Postal Life Insurance,

7, LK Oiaghat Street,

Calcutta700001.

DEATH CLAIM AGAINST POLICY NO.

APS NM129374L HELD BY

15462703 LATE SER BALBINDER SINGH

Sir,

The above insurant took the policy on 23 Apr 95 and committed suicide on 23 Sep. 95.

The policy No. APSNM129374L dated 23 Apr. 95 for Rs. 30,000/ is being cancelled being void in terms of Rule 44 of Post Office Insurance

Fund Rules on the insurant committed suicide within two years from taking policy.

The original policy document (LI2D) is kept in case file duly cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/

(P. Manikkan)

Major,

DDAPS (PLI).

The basic reason for denial of the claim to the petitioner is that son of petitioner had committed suicide. Petitioner submits that there is no proof

the Balbinder Singh had committed suicide. There was no previous history of petitioner having exhibited such a behaviour. Independently of the

above, the postal life insurance scheme covers all type of risks. This is apparent from Annexure K. The risks covered are as under :

RISK COVER

(a) Risk cover is full. No extra premium is recovered for War risk. All eventualities allowed.

(b) PLI is a real insurance scheme. It covers all Types of Risk unlike some schemes claiming to provide insurance cover but only covers accident

risk through Nationalised Insurance Companies (Please note that life insurance is Nationalised and no private company can offer full life insurance

cover).

A perusal of the above, it is urged would indicate that this policy cover all types of risks. There is no exception made that if somebody commits

suicide then the policy would be rendered void.

Respondents do admit that the deceased had taken two postal life insurance covers. These policies were taken on 3131994 and 2341995. In

the objections, the stand taken is that as per Rule 44 of the Post Office Insurance Fund if an insurant commits suicide within two years from the

issue of the policy, the policy would become void. Such is not the condition contained in the brochure above referred. Independently of the above

the question arises as to whether this is a case of suicide. There is no finding anywhere that Balbinder Singh had committed suicide. Such was not

the stand taken by the respondents in their letter dated 6101997. Doctor, who had examined the deadbody has nowhere stated that it was a case

of suicide. The opinion given by the Medical Officer, PHC Vijaypur is reproduced again :

I am of the opinion from above findings and the circumstances that the deceased has died of asphyxia due to rope round the neck causing

cardiorespiratory failure.

The time since death at the time of postmortem is more than two days and less than five days.

As per the Doctor the duration of death could be more than two days, but less than five days. The body was completely decomposed. The

external injuries which were found by the Doctor are as under :

A ligature mark around the neck with the rope, with knot on the back side, below the occipital region. Rope is tightened as the neck and face are

swollen.

From the report of the Medical Officer, who had examined the deceased it becomes apparent that the death is by hanging. He has nowhere

opined that this is a case of suicide.

All deaths occurring on account of hanging are not suicide. There are cases where dead body is suspended after murder with a view to give an

impression that the death was suicide. Some instances are quoted in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Butterworths, edition at page

In one case dead body was hanging by a rope. The autopsy revealed no external injury except a ligature mark on the middle of the neck.

Nevertheless taking note of various factors death by suicide was ruled out. In another case where a prisoner got himself free from the custody of a

police constable and had killed him and thereafter hanged him from the branch of a tree it was established that this was a case of homicide rather

than of suicide. Some other cases are also mentioned at page 260. The distinguishing features between hanging and strangulation are indicated at

page 270 of the above book. The learned author also take note of the fact that with a view to determine as to whether the death is homicidal or

suicidal, the condition and mark on the rope, the tree branch from where the body was suspended, marks of violence, if any, on the ground should

be examined.

In the present case, there is no such examination. Nobody has taken any step with a view to record a finding as to how this is a case of suicide.

The opinion of the Doctor is silent. Even a dead man is entitled to some respect. Dubbing him as a man who could commit suicide would amount

to

casting a stigma on him.

The law of the LandCivil and Criminalprotects a dead man also. If a decree passed against a dead person or trial against a dead man is a nullity,

then the least which was required in this case was to record some reasons for the conclusion that this is a case of suicide. This has apparently not

happened in this case. The evidence on the basis of which a finding could be recorded i.e. whether this is a case of suicide or not cannot be now

recorded. Evidence and material which could be available is no longer available. Nobody has cared to take notice of the condition of the rope or

of the tree from where the dead body was found. Nobody noticed the marks on ground from where the dead body was found hanging. Whether

these marks on the rope indicated upward or downward drag and how pressure came to be exerted on the rope have not been noticed at all.

Therefore, the view expressed by the respondent that this was a case of suicide is held to be based on no evidence and cannot be given effect to.

16.Therefore, it is held that the unilateral decision taken by the respondents that it is a case of suicide is a decision which is not based on any

factual foundation. I am accordingly, of the view:

(i) that in terms of the conditions given in the brochure all types of death are covered;

(ii) there is absolutely no finding of any authority that the death was on account of suicide.

The unilateral decision taken by the respondents is not sustainable;

(iii) that at the spot where the deadbody was found hanging there was nothing to indicate as to how and under what circumstances the deceased

was able to hang himself. The existence of the knot at the back is suggestive of the fact that this could be done by a third person also.

In the connected writ petition No. 222/2000 decided today a specific stand has been taken in ground (h) by the petitioner. This paragraph is

reproduced below :

(h) That it is astonishing that the Doctor has given his opinion that the deceased had died of Asphysia due to rope round the neck causing

cardiorespiratory failure. He further says that time since death at the time of postmortem is more than two days and less than five days. However, it

is pertinent to mention that in a reported case dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The doctor prepared the spot map and did the

autopsy and found one incised would 5"" x 2"" x 1"" on the right neck of the deceased and the Muscles were cut. The Doctor gave his opinion that

since there was putrefaction of both the dead bodies it could not be said whether the injuries were postmortem or antemortem.

There could possibly be no rebuttal and in fact there was no reply to this.

Therefore to say that the death was on account of suicide is an argument which cannot be accepted. The possibility of injuries having been

inflicted on the person of the son of petitioner and thereafter hanged by third person cannot be ruled out. Before parting with this judgment

reference be made to a decision reported as Charanjit Kour v. Union of India Service Ruling Volume 13 page 100. In this case the officer had

died under mysterious circumstances. The result of enquiry was kept secret. The dead body of the deceased was found with 98% burns. The

stand of the State was that he had gone to attend some private business. This aspect of the matter did not find favour with Supreme Court of India

and the petitioner was held entitled to pension. In this view of the matter the stand of the respondents that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of

the Postal Insurance Cover cannot be sustained. This petition is allowed. Let the amount be released within two months from the date of receipt of

copy of this order. Petitioner to get interest at the rate of 9% for the arrears. In case payment is not released in terms of the order passed by this

Court then the rate of interest would be 12%.

Disposed of as such.