S.B.I. LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs SUDESH KHANDUJA & ANR.

This common order shall decide both the above-said revision petitions, which entail same questions of facts and law.

Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard.

Shri Rajendra Kumar Khanduja, since deceased, the insured, obtained two insurance policies i.e. one policy for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and another policy for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, from SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Unfortunately, Shri Rajendra Kumar Khanduja passed away on 14.8.2005. He died within 10 months from the date of taking both the insurance policies i.e. within one year from the date of issue of the policies.

The petitioner/insurance company rejected the claim of Smt. Sudesh Khanduja, wife of the deceased, and her daughter, Ku. Simran Khanduja.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants on the ground that it is a case of insured''s suicide. However, in the appeal preferred by the complainants, their claim was accepted by the State Commission. The State Commission directed the petitioner/insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.14 lakhs to the complainants, for both insurance policies, within a period of one month from the date of two separate orders passed by the State Commission, failing which, the said amount will carry 12% interest from the date of the order till payment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party has invited our attention towards the fact that this is a clear cut case of suicide and as such the legal representatives of the deceased are not entitled to the above said claim. In this context, he has invited our attention towards the post-mortem report, which is reproduced as follows:

In my opinion, the cause of death of deceased is shock as a result of Sulphas poisoning (but confirmed by chemical analysis.)

Time elapsed between death and PM is about 2 to 3 hrs."

However, the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, M.P. gave the analysis report, which runs as follows:

"In Exb. ''A'', there is Aluminium Phosphide

In Exb. ''B'', there is no any Chemical poison"

Apart from this document, there is report of the police, which runs as under:

"It is requested that during the course of investigation and perusal of statements of witnesses, F.S.L. Sagar and the Merg Panchnama pertaining to the deceased Rajendra Singh Khanduja, S/o Govindram Khanduja, R/o Guard Line, Damoh vide Merg No. 49/05 under Section 174 of CrPC, statements of brother and the father were obtained, therein, it has been found that the deceased was in debt of Rs.20.00 lacs of Union Bank and due to non-payment of bills of Rs.50.00 lacs by the Co-operatives and on demanding the debt by the Bank, causing mental trauma and on account of good reputation in the city and due to spoiling of the same, the deceased has committed suicide. In F.S.L. report also, Aluminium Phosphide was found. On account of non-commission of offence, the Merg Diary is being forwarded to the Hon''ble Sir for filing the same."

Our attention was also invited towards the fact that the complainants have tried to mislead the case and gave different version in the claim form and counter claim. It was clearly, specifically and unequivocally stated that the deceased died due to heart attack. They took diverse and conflicting stands. It was also argued that since the insured expired within a period of 10 months from the date of taking the insurance policy, therefore, the repudiation letter was based on the police report and post mortem report.

Last submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the insured resides in Damoh. He expired at Damoh. The policy was issued from Mumbai Head Office and the complainants filed the case at Indore Branch. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is a branch office at Damoh as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that no prejudice has been caused to the insurance company except that the area was different.

All these arguments have left no impression upon us. It is an admitted fact that the investigating agency of OP made no efforts in this case. There is no report of investigation by the OP. The investigation of this case by insurance agency (OP) was done hit or miss. It clearly shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of OP. When they are alleging that this is a case of suicide, they should have been vigilant and should have produced the solid and unflappable evidence. From the report of the doctor, it is not clear whether the deceased took poison or not. Even if it is prima facie assumed that it may be a case of suicide, yet, it cannot be said definitely from the facts mentioned above, whether, it was a case of homicide, culpable homicide, murder, suicide or an accident. It must be borne in mind that it is the OP and nobody else, who is to carry the ball in proving the factum of suicide. The contradictions about heart attack made by the complainants may not be the contradictions. It is the generalised term.

Now, we turn to the report of the police. The report of the police carries exiguous value. The report of the police has to be proved by producing cogent and plausible evidence. The affidavits of the witnesses mentioned in the police report did not see the light of the day. The police submits that he was in debt for a sum of more than Rs. 75 lakhs but there is no proof. It is not bolstered by cogent and plausible evidence. The police report cannot be made the basis for the repudiation of the claim. There is no corroborative evidence. Such like stories can be created at any time.

It was the bounden duty of the opposite party to produce the record from the Bank. The OP is negligent. It did not take the trouble to get the statements of accounts from the Bank. It has investigated this case in a happy go lucky manner.

Again, regarding territorial jurisdiction, no prejudice has been caused to the opposite party. This objection should have been taken at the earliest possible stage i.e. before the District Forum, Indore. Its value thus evanesces.

The revision petitions are lame of strength and the same are hereby dismissed. However, it is brought to our notice that the opposite party has paid some amount to the complainants. Therefore, it is directed that the amount, if any, paid to the complainants, the same shall be adjusted. The said amount be paid within 30 days from the date of the order, otherwise, the order of this Commission will become executable.