Manju Sharma @ Mamta Bhardwaj vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

DECEASED Ashok Kumar had obtained three Life Insurance Policies from Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, Opposite Party, on separate dates. Unfortunately, the insured passed away on 17.08.2003. The case of the petitioner Smt. Mamta Sharma @ Mamta Bhardwaj, wife of the insured and other complainants is that the deceased died due to electrocution. Since the complainants failed to produce evidence in this respect, therefore, the accident benefits were denied by the opposite party. Both the Foras below have refused to allow the claim prayed by the complainants.

WE have heard the counsel for the petitioners. He explained that the deceased/insured died of electrocution. He was taken to Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon where he died. A slip -Annexure 20 reveals that the body of the deceased was handed over to Vinod Kumar, brother of the deceased for taking him to Civil Hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that as per society rituals, the body of the deceased was not taken to the Civil Hospital for postmortem examination. The case of the petitioner hinges upon the fact that a civil suit was filed against the LIC, wherein Dr. Arun Vashisth, Medical Officer, Kalyani Hospital admitted that the deceased had died due to electrocution. It is also interesting to note that the statement of Dr. Arun Vashisth, Medical Officer was also recorded before the District Forum. In his deposition, Dr. Arun Vashisth stated that the patient was brought to the hospital s emergency department and was declared dead on arrival. He further stated that the ECG showed flat line. He testified that he was brought with the history of electric shock. In his cross -examination, he explained that he cannot comment on the exact cause of death of the patient but the patient was brought with the history of electrocution. He could not say whether the postmortem was conducted on the dead body or not. Learned counsel for the petitioners opined that all these facts and circumstances sufficiently establish the fact that the insured had died due to electrocution.

FOR the following reasons, we do not find ourselves amenable to these arguments. The deceased died due to electrocution is a mere allegation, which is not supported by any cogent, convincing ad conclusive evidence. It is difficult to fathom as to why did the kith and kin of the deceased think it better not to get the autopsy conducted on the dead body of the deceased. It is not understood as to why did they bury their heads in the sand. Search for truth is the foundation of Judiciary. Again, truth is foundation of all knowledge and cement of all societies. It is painfully apparent that it is impossible to gauge the reasons. The absence of any evidence has taken the steam out of complainants case. It cannot be presumed that the deceased died due to electrocution. The evidence adduced by the complainants does not go to scotch the doubts about this case. The revision petition is devoid of merits and therefore, the same is dismissed.