Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited vs Arun Kumar

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Reliance Life Insurance Company against the order dated 10.11.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.82 of 2015.

Brief facts of the case are that the wife of the respondent was insured vide policy dated 17.07.2012 bearing No.50251070 issued by the petitioner Insurance Company. During the currency of the policy insured died on 31.01.2013. The respondent, who was the nominee in the policy, filed a claim before the insurance Company. The Insurance Company got the matter investigated as the death was within one year of taking the policy. The Investigator gave his report dated 24.08.2013 that the death was not natural and the insured was murdered by her husband, the present respondent and the nominee in the policy. The investigator got an affidavit given by the father of the insured, clearly stating that the husband of the insured has killed her. On the basis of the affidavit of the father of the insured, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. Aggrieved with the repudiation, the respondent filed a consumer complaint being No.26 of 2014 before the District Consumer Forum, Nawada (in short 'the District Forum'). The complaint was contested on the same ground as mentioned in the repudiation letter. The District Forum vide its order dated 25.2.2015 allowed the complaint and ordered the insurance Company to pay the insurance amount of Rs.6,10,000/- along with 7% p.a. interest from 18.1.2014 as well as Rs.3000/- as compensation. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the opposite party/petitioner herein preferred appeal bearing No.82 of 2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 10.11.2015.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that father of the insured has given an affidavit clearly stating that her husband has killed the insured by giving poison in the food. The counsel further stated that a person will not file a wrong affidavit and therefore, the affidavit of the father of the insured cannot be ignored. If the respondent/complainant is involved in the criminal act involving the insured he cannot get any benefit under the policy. It was stated that both the fora below have erroneously passed the orders ignoring this fact.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that a wild allegation has been levelled against the respondent as there is no FIR lodged by the father of the insured or by anybody else. The respondent died on 31.01.2013 at Mieskur Primary Health Centre at Nawada. The reason of death in the Medical Attendant Certificate is mentioned as cardio respiratory failure. Thus, any allegation which is contrary to the facts in the medical attendant certificate cannot be accepted. As it was not an unnatural death, there was no question of filing FIR by the complainant.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. First of all, it is seen that both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact and have allowed the claim. Both the fora below have accepted that the insurance claim is payable as it does not violate any condition of the policy. The facts cannot be reassessed at the stage of revision petition against the concurrent finding given by both the fora below as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the following has been held:-

"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."

There is no FIR in the matter either filed by the father of the insured or anybody else. The father has also not filed any complaint case in any criminal court against the husband of the insured. Thus, the assertion of the father of the insured cannot be taken at its face value as there is no evidence to support the same. The investigator has also relied upon the affidavit of the father of the insured and has not inquired about these facts from the persons of the locality. The death has happened in the hospital and the cause of death has been reported to be cardio respiratory failure. Thus, the wild allegation of the father of the insured that the insured died of food poisoning as the poison was given by the husband of the insured does not seem to be tenable and therefore, the decision in the present case cannot be taken on that basis.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 10.11.2015 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No.146 of 2016 is dismissed.