Life Insurance Corporation of India vs T.KAMALAMMA

THE respondent herein filed a complaint O.P. No. 221/1996 before the Khamman District Forum alleging that her husband Venkata Narasaiah insured his life and obtained insurance policy No. 681216989 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with accident benefit from the branch office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madhira, that her husband Venkata Narasaiah subsequently died in the year 1994, that when she made a claim for payment of the policy amount as a nominee under the above policy, the opposite parties namely, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, branch at Madhira and the Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Warangal rejected her claim on flimsy grounds and that the opposite parties gave an evasive reply to the legal notice got issued by her on 9.8.1995 and that she is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the policy amount with bonus, etc. and also damages of Rs. 50,000/-.

A joint counter signed by the Marketing Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation was filed on behalf of the opposite parties before the District Forum admitting the issuance of the policy in question in favour of the deceased husband of the complainant, but contending that the complainant has not furnished the particulars regarding the cause and date of death of her husband, that the enquiries made by them revealed that the deceased husband of the complainant committed suicide on 22.2.1994, that since the policy holder committed suicide within one year from the date of the policy, the policy became null and void in terms of the condition No. 6 of the policy and that therefore no amount is payable to the complainant under the policy. At the time of enquiry, the complainant filed Exs.A-1 to A-8 documents and the opposite parties filed Exs. B-l and B-2 documents. Nooral evidence was adduced by either party.

After considering the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the deceased husband of the complainant Venkata Narasaiah (the policy holder) committed suicide on 22.2.1994 by consuming poison as revealed by Ex. A-3 post-mortem report mentioning that the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad opined that the deceased husband of the complainant died due to an insecticide poison. However, the District Forum citing a decision of the Supreme Court said to have been reported in AIR 1995 SC Page 1365 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on ex-gratia basis.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the officials of the Life Insurance Corporation of India preferred this appeal. It is contended for the appellants that there is abundant evidence to show that the deceased committed suicide within one year from the date of the policy, that the District Forum went wrong in reaching the conclusion that there is a doubt as to the cause of the death of the deceased and that having entertained doubt as to the cause of the death of the deceased the District Forum should not have directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on ex-gratia basis. We find force in this contention. The District Forum considered the material on record and observed that the post- mortem report (Ex. A-3) which mentions that the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad which gave its opinion after examining the viscera came to the conclusion that the deceased died by consuming insecticide poison and it cannot be brushed aside. In the circumstances we find that there is no basis for the observation of the District Forum that it cannot be said whether the deceased committed suicide or somebody killed him by administering poison, particularly when it is not the case of the complainant that her husband was killed by somebody by administering poisoner poisonous substance. Admittedly the deceased husband of the complainant died on 22.2.1994 and the policy was issued on 7.11.1993. Therefore it can be safely concluded that the deceased died within four months from the date of the policy. The evidence on record reveals that he committed suicide. According to the condition No. 6 of the policy, the policy shall be void if the life assured commits suicide at any time on or after the date on which the risk under the policy has commenced but before the expiry of one year from the date of the policy and the Corporation will not entertain any claim by virtue of the policy except to the extent of a third party''s bona fide beneficial interest acquired in the policy for valuable consideration of which notice has been given in writing to the office to which premiums under the policy were paid last, atleast one calendar month prior to death. In view of the condition No. 6, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any amount under the policy obtained by her deceased husband Venkata Narasaiah inasmuch as it is found that the deceased husband of the complainant committed suicide within one year from the date of the policy and the policy became void by virtue of condition No. 6 of the conditions of the policy and that the District Forum is not right in directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- as ex-gratia amount. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.