AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai dated 03.12.2010 in First Appeal No. 2202/2006 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred against the order of District Forum Nanded in CC No. 169/04.
Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the revision petition are that Balabhau Gunabuwa Bharti, husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainant no. 2 to 4 was owner of agricultural land situated at Naleshwar and District Nanded . He was member of respondent no.1 Society. The society had taken group insurance for its members with the petitioner insurance company. Balabhau Gunabuwa Bharti died non 01.05.2004 due to insecticide poisoning. According to the complainants, the death of insured was accidental. They, therefore, approached the petitioner insurance company for insurance claim. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that Balabhau Gunabuwa had committed suicide and as such, the claim was not maintainable.
Learned District Forum on consideration of pleadings and evidence came to the conclusion that the insured had committed suicide and as such the complainants were not entitled to the sum assured. Being aggrieved of the said order, the complainants approached the State Commission in appeal and State Commission vide impugned allowed the appeal and directed respondent no.2 to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs with interest @ 9 % from the filing of complaint i.e. 05.11.2014 besides cost of Rs.2000/- was also imposed.
Shri S K Ray, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission has fallen in grave error by ignoring the fact that the life assured committed suicide by consuming insecticide and as such, the repudiation of insurance claim in view of the Exclusion Clause in the insurance contract is justified. It is contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that as per the spot inspection report placed on record, neither the nozzle nor the sprinkler pump was found at the spot which fact clearly belies the plea of the respondent complainant that the life assured accidentally consumed poisonous insecticide while trying to clean the nozzle of the sprinkler pump by putting it in his mouth. Secondly, it is contended that even if it is assumed that it is a case of accidental death, then also, grant of compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs against the insurance cover of Rs.1.00 lac is not justified.
Shri Amol N Suryawanshi, Advocate for OP No. 1 to 4 on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. It is contended that the State Commission has rightly concluded that the life assured died because of accidental consumption of insecticide while cleaning nozzle of insecticide pump on the basis of report under section 174 Cr. P.C. registered at Police Station and the inquiry conducted by the police.
We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. It is not in dispute that life assured was covered under the group insurance policy obtained by respondent no.5 Society from the petitioner insurance company. It is also not in dispute that the life assured died because of insecticide poisoning during the currency of insurance policy. Case of the complainants is that life assured accidentally consumed insecticide while trying to clean the nozzle of insecticide pump by taking it into his mouth whereas according to the petitioner opposite party it is case of suicide and as such, in view of the Exception Clause, the insurance claim is not payable.
In order to find answer to the question whether it is case of suicide or accidental death, it would be useful to have a look on the Inquest Panchnama prepared by Police Post Incharge Wazirabad dated 01.05.2004. In the panchnama, it is recorded that when the chowki incharge alongwith panchas entered the ICU room of Ashwani Hospital, Nanded, they saw the dead body of the life assured on the cot. ShYam s/o life assured was standing by his side and he informed that his father was sprinkling pesticide on the crop in the field. The pump suddenly got blocked because of some blockage due to waste. Therefore, his father in order to clear the waste away from the nozzle, took the nozzle in his mouth and as a consequence due to suction, he swallowed the insecticide. In the morning he felt giddiness. Thereafter, he was brought to the hospital and unfortunately he died at 9.15 a.m. From the above, it appears that life assured died because of accidental consumption of poison. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposite party has contended that the story of accidental consumption of poison is a self supporting story concocted by the son of the deceased. Had the story been true, the investigating officer and the panchas would have found the sprinkler pump and the nozzle at the spot. The above argument of the petitioner do raise suspicion against the correctness of accidental consumption of pesticide but it cannot be taken as a substitute of proof of suicide having been committed by the deceased. Since the petitioner has repudiated the claim under the Exception Clause, the onus of proving that the life assured died is the result of suicide committed by him, was on the petitioner. The petitioner has not led any cogent evidence to establish suicide. Even the report of the investigator appointed by the petitioner does not conclude that the life assured has committed suicide. Thus, in absence of any cogent proof regarding suicide, we find it difficult to interfere with the reasoned order of the State Commission.
As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the State Commission is concerned, we do agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no justification for award of compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs with interest because as per Insurance Policy, insurance cover was only for Rupees one lakh. To that extent, the impugned order suffers from irregularity and needs to be modified.
In view of the discussion above, we do not find any force in the revision petition seeking dismissal of the complaint. However, the impugned order of the State Commission needs to be modified to bring it in conformity with the insurance contract. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order and direct the petitioner to pay to the respondent no. 1 to 4 a sum of Rs.1.00 lac with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of complaint. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.