Suman Chugh vs National Insurance Co. Ltd

AGGRIEVED by the order dated 03.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission), original complainant Smt. Suman Chugh has filed the present petition. The State Commission by this order has set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short the District Forum) allowing her request for extending the benefit arising out of the insurance policy with interest and dismissed her complaint.

THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/complainant ''s husband had taken a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent/Insurance Company, which was valid for a period of ten years w.e.f. 20th of January, 1997. It is the say of the petitioner/complainant that her husband while cleaning his licensed revolver accidentally fired the weapon resulting in his death. Information in this regard was given to the concerned police authorities. Post mortem was also conducted and the doctor had opined that the death had been caused due to bullet injury. The petitioner/complainant being the nominee of the life assured, therefore, preferred a claim before the respondent/Insurance Company and furnished the original policy and other relevant documents but her claim was not settled by the respondent/Insurance Company on one pretext or the other. In this background, finding no other options, she approached the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/Insurance Company to pay all the benefits under the policy with 9% interest and a cost of Rs.2000/-. The respondent/Insurance Company, who was arrayed as the opposite party before the District Forum, challenged the award of the District Forum in appeal before the State Commission, who vide the order impugned has set aside the order of the District Forum resulting in the dismissal of the complaint; thus, giving rise to the revision petition by the complainant. We have heard Mr. Vipul Raheja, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant on admission and have considered his submissions. We have also carefully perused the records and the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission.

The moot point for consideration before the District Forum and the State Commission was as to whether the death of the deceased husband of the petitioner/complainant resulting from the incident of fire from the revolver was accidental or a deliberate act of committing suicide? The District Forum has simply gone by the mention in the DDR that the "life assured had taken tea and was trying to clean his weapon with cotton and oil in the kitchen and the revolver suddenly went off while hitting the life assured ". It has further relied upon the final opinion of the police investigation and the post mortem report that the death has occurred due to "sudden fire " by bullet injury. It further believed that the incident occurred in the presence of one Kiran and the availability of material such as cotton and oil was sufficient proof of the accidental fire. The State Commission found the observation of the District Forum rather superfluous and has dealt with them in its order. In particular, it has examined the post mortem report in detail and the opinion given by Dr. R.K. Chaudhary, who stated that : "1. The appearance of wound of entry, its situation and that of wound of exit shows that the firearm bullet hit the Right Temple from very close distance and almost horizontally. In view of this fact it is least likely that the firearm weapon accidentally went off during its cleaning. 2. The possibility of this firearm injury being caused by suicide cannot be ruled out. "

THE State Commission on the basis of Dr. R.K. Chaudhary ''s opinion and holding that the facts of the case are squarely covered by the order passed by this Commission in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Meena [I(2010) CPJ 162 (NC)] set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. We may add that mere mention of death resulting from a bullet injury cannot ipso facto be termed as accidental death. Reliance placed by the District Forum on the presence of witness Kiran to the fire incident it totally misplaced, inasmuch as the said Kiran in her statement at page 35-A of the paper-book states that the deceased Anil Chugh had come to her residence at 6 p.m. in the evening and after having tea in the verandah went to the kitchen for putting the cup back and it was then that he picked up oil and cotton and started cleaning his licensed revolver. The District Forum ought to have applied its judicious mind to assess as to whether a chance visitor to a neighbour ''s place would carry his licensed revolver and if the lady offered him tea in the verandah, can it be believed that he would have gone to the host ''s kitchen to drop the cup and start cleaning the weapon there! We cannot but observe that the District Forum has totally failed to apply its mind to the facts of the case. Analysis made by Dr. R.K. Chaudhary in his report that the bullet had hit the right temple from very close distance and almost horizontally makes it abundantly clear that it was a case of suicide as no sane person would lift his revolver to the level of his temple in the process of cleaning. Resultantly, we find no infirmity in the order of the State Commission and dismiss the revision petition.