K. MANI vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

THIS order shall dispose of both the revision petitions since they arise out of same issue and identical facts. The petitioner, K. Mani, in both the cases is the original complainant. His case is that his wife P. Jothi Prema had taken five life insurance policies with accident benefit in respect of consumer complaint bearing No. 22 of 2004 (RP No. 2884 of 2011) and two policies also with accident benefit under consumer complaint No. 23 of 2004 (RP No. 2883 of 2011). The complainant ''s wife died on 5.8.2002 due to burn injuries sustained in a fire accident which took place on 29.7.2002. The opposite parties, who are respondents herein, settled the claim on the aforesaid policies by paying the basic sum assured but they did not settle the claim in respect of the accident benefit and hence the complainant lodged two separate complaints as above with the District Forum praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay the accident benefit under the aforesaid two sets of policies with interest and compensation. On being noticed, the opposite parties resisted the complaints on the ground that the insured Jothi Prema committed suicide and her death was not an accidental death and, therefore, in terms of the conditions of the policy in question, the beneficiary is entitled only to basic sum assured and not to any amount towards the accident benefit. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by both sides and considering their contentions, the District Forumvide its order passed on 16.4.2008 in each of the two complaints held that the insured committed suicide and that her death is not due to any fire accident. In view of this, the District Forum further held that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant and dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by this order, the complainant filed separate appeals bearing Nos. 429 of 2008 and 430 of 2008 before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai ( ''State Commission '' for short) challenging the order dated 16.4.2008. The State Commission dismissed both these appealsvide its common order dated 12.4.2011 which is now under challenge through the present revision petition. We have heard Mr. V. Shankar, learned Advocate for the petitioner.

THE common issue involved in both the petitions is as to whether the death of the insured was as a result of an accident or by suicide.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the insured person died of burn injuries sustained in a fire accident while cooking at her residence and the Fora below erred in failing to take note of the report of the investigating officer, who had recorded the statement of the life assured. He further submitted that the mandatory procedure for recording of dying declaration had not been followed by the doctor and the SI of Police while recording the statement of the life assured. He pointed out that in the absence of a certificate of fitness being given by the doctor to the life assured at the time of recording of her statement by the investigating officer, the contents of the FIR should have been discarded by the Fora below. Relying on the authority of the ruling in the cases of Smt. Lakshmi v. Om Prakash & Others, V (2001) SLT 136=92 (2001) DLT 447 (SC)=II (2001) DMC 139 (SC)=III (2001) CCR 24 (SC)=AIR 2001 SC 2383 and Shaikh Rafiq and Another v. State of Maharashtra, II (2008) SLT 548=I (2008) CCR 406 (SC)=AIR 2008 SC 1362, learned Counsel pleaded that because of serious lacuna and loopholes in the procedure of recording the statement of the life assured, the report of the investigating officer and the contents of the FIR could not be relied upon to reach the conclusion that the death did not take place as a result of accidental fire. In the circumstances, he submitted that the impugned order based oh wrong appreciation of evidence placed before the District Forum and the State Commission, cannot be sustained, in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. Going through the record, we observe that both the District Forum and the State Commission have considered the evidence led by the parties in great detail. Basically, death by accident or by suicide is a question of fact and both the Fora below have returned their concurrent findings against the complainant by holding that the preponderance of evidence indicated death of the life assured by suicide and not on account of accidental fire. Before reaching its conclusion in the matter, the District Forum also took into consideration the evidence of Dr. Uma whose statement was recorded by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the District Forum. She was also cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. In this context, the following observations of the State Commission recorded in paras 6, 7 and 8 are quite relevant: "6. The contention of the appellant is that his wife died of burn injuries sustained in a fire accident while cooking at her residence whereas the respondents would contend that the death is due to self-immolation. The appellant relies on Ex. A1, Ex. A14, Ex. A15, Ex. A16, and Ex. A22 to establish that the death occurred due to accidental fire while cooking. The respondents heavily rely on the evidence of Dr. Uma whose evidence was recorded by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the District Forum and the related documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C13, Ex. A13, Ex. A24, Ex. A25. 7. As per evidence of Dr. Uma, when she was at Govt. Hospital, Karaikudi at about 10.30 a.m. on 29.7.2002, the injured Prema was admitted with burn injuries and on her examination she found burn injuries all over the body to an extant of 80-90% mainly on her chest, shoulder and thighs and she recorded her statement, who stated that on the same day at about 8.30 a.m. she doused kerosene on herself and set fire to herself and at about 1.00 p.m. on the same day she was referred to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai for further management on the advice of the Surgeon and before the injured was discharged from the hospital, she gave intimation to Karaikudi North, P.S. She has further deposed that the statement of the injured was recorded by her in the accident register and sent the original accident register to Karaikudi North P.S. and the police officer attached to Karaikudi North P.S. went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured and she was present when the statement was recorded by the police officer. The accident register copy is Ex. C1, the case sheet is Ex. C2, and the intimation given to the daughter of the injured obtaining her signature therein is Ex. C3. The Doctor has reiterated in her cross-examination that it is a case of self immolation and that when the insured made the statement as to cause of burn injuries, her speech was coherent and she was mentally fit to give the statement though later she had intermittent setbacks. When we peruse Ex. C1, the accident register, as recorded by the Doctor, the injured is alleged to have burnt herself by pouring kerosene at about 8.30 a.m. at her residence on 29.7.2002 and extensive burns were found all over the body, over chest, shoulders and thighs, etc., to an extant of 80-90%. There is nothing on record to discredit the evidence of the doctor, and no motive or personal interest is attributed to her or suggested to her that the statement recorded by her is interested or faulty in any manner. We find no reason at all to disbelieve or disregard her evidence and the statement recorded by her in accident register. The doctor was not interested or prejudiced in any manner or she had no reason to depose falsely against the complainant or to record an untrue statement as deposed by the injured. Therefore the evidence of the doctor and the entries in the accident register, Ex. C1 and the case sheet, Ex. C2 are quite trustworthy and reliance can be placed on them. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the injured was not in a fit state of mind to give any statement and that the statement recorded by the doctor in the accident register does not reflect the true cause of burn injuries, etc. is not tenable. 8. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that when we consider the evidence of PW1, the SI of Police, we come to know that it is not a case of suicide and it is a case of death due to accidental fire. It is pertinent to note that on intimation from the Govt. Hospital Karaikudi, the SI of Police has gone to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured and on returning to the station a case under Section 309, IPC (attempt to commit suicide) has been registered in Cr. No. 309/2002 by himself. "

THE State Commission while dismissing the appeal has already considered the citations relied upon by the Counsel and has rejected the same by making the following observation: "13. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions of the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in AIR-2001-SC-2383, Smt. Lakshmi v. Om Prakash and Others and AIR-2008-SC-1362, Shaikh Rafiq and Another v. State of Maharashtra, and argued that the mandatory procedure for recording of dying declaration has not been followed by the doctor and SI of Police while recording the statement. Admittedly neither the doctor nor the SI of Police has sent any requisition to the concerned Magistrate to record dying declaration of the injured, despite the fact that there was extensive burns. The above decisions pertain to dying declaration only which has no application to the present case. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument of the appellant ''s Counsel in this regard. "

WE agree with concurrent view taken by the Fora below in the matter. Nothing has been produced before us, which would indicate any illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of fact returned by the District Forum and the State Commission. The Consumer Fora are not Criminal Courts and hence looking to the nature of the proceedings before them, if necessary they can go by preponderance of evidence placed before them by the parties. We, therefore, do not find any substance in these revision petitions which are dismissed in limine but with no order as to costs. Revision Petitions dismissed.