BHARTIYA JEEVAN BIMA NIGAM vs MURARI LAL TAMARKAR

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 4.12.2003 in Complaint No. 325/2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter called ''District Forum'' for short) directing the appellant insurer to pay to the complainants the assured amount with accident benefit under the policy obtained by his wife deceased Mrs. Premlatha.

UNDISPUTABLY, the complainant''s wife Mrs. Premlatha obtained Jeevan Mithra Policy (Double cover endowment plan) with profit (with accident benefit ) on 28.3.1994. Premium payable from time-to-time towards the said policy was duly paid. Insured Premlatha died on 31.5.1998. The claim was laid by the complainant nominee, the husband of the insured. However, the claim was repudiated by the respondent insurer by its letter dated 1.11.2002, on the ground that the complainant/respondent herein has been convicted of the charge of having murdered the insured his wife, Mrs. Premlatha. Feeling aggrieved by the repudiation as above, the complaint was filed in the District Forum by the complainant/respondent. The appellant insurer resisted the complaint. It was averred in the written version that the complainant has been convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. It was, therefore, averred that the appellant insurer was not obliged to pay the complainant any amount under the policy.

The District Forum in the impugned order held that the appellant insurer has failed to establish that the complainant murdered his wife, the insured Mrs. Premlatha. It was also observed that even if the complainant was convicted under Section 498A of I.P.C., he cannot still be denied the benefit of policy, he being the nominee.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant insurer assailed the impugned order. He has filed the original policy document in this appeal and has drawn our attention to Clause 10(b) of the conditions and privileges of the said policy. In Conditions 10(b)(v) - it has been stipulated that the Corporation shall not be liable to pay the additional sum referred if the disability or the death of the Life Assured shall result from, the Life Assured committing any breach of law. Obviously, the insurer Mrs. Premlatha is neither alleged nor shown to have committed any breach of law. Hence, condition mentioned in Clause 10(b)(iv) would not be applicable. Again in Condition 10(b)(i)-it has been provided that Corporation can avoid its liability if the death was caused by intentional self injury, attempted suicide, insanity or immorality or whilst the Life Assured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drug or narcotic. None of the above conditions have been shown to exist in the present case with reference to the death of life assured. Hence, the above clause also would not apply. THEre is nothing on record to establish that the complainant committed murder of the insured. It is thus noticed that neither the ground of repudiation that is murder of the insured by the complainant/respondent, nor breach of any other policy condition has been established by the appellant insurer. Therefore, appellant insurer cannot successfully avoid payment of sum payable under policy to the complainant nominee. The District Forum was justified in holding so. There is no substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.