AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The main controversy pivots around the question, "Whether, ''murder'' is an accidental death?". The State Commission while reversing the order of the District Forum came to a negative conclusion.
Sh. Ganesh Dongre, the insured, since deceased, husband of Smt. Sunanda, the complainant, obtained personal loans of Rs.31,233/- and Rs.25,341/- from OPs 1 & 2, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Against these loans, Group Insurance Policy was issued in the name of Mr. Ganesh Dongre, for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- under the credit shield and up to Rs.7,50,000/- under personal accident. Unfortunately, Mr.Ganesh Dongre was murdered on 15.11.2006. A claim filed by his nominee, wife, Smt. Sunanda, was repudiated on the ground that death of her husband was not an accidental death, but it was a ''homicidal death'' and such death is not covered as per the Exclusion Clause of the policy.
However, the State Commission accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
The record reveals that one Sarju Dongre had committed the murder of the insured. The judgment passed by the Sessions Court, Nagpur, dated 11.09.2007 in para No.38, reads as under :- "Witness No.6, Sunanda Dongre is the wife of deceased and this witness stated at Exh. 43 and throw a light on main point, this witness clearly stated that, Sheela Dongre is the neighbor of her, accused is the nephew of Sheela Dongre, deceased Ganesh Dongre had illicit relations with Sheela Dongre and this fact was known to the accused, then the present witness proves that there was intention of the accused to do crime".
The above said judgment concludes with the following observation :- "Order Accused Sarju alias Suraj S/o Babarao alias Vinod Dongre convicted u/s 235(2) under the Code of Criminal Procedure and u/s 304 (2) of Indian Penal Code and held guilty u/s 304(2) of IPC and punished him with rigorous punishment of 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- if the accused has not paid the amount of fine then further he has to undergo 3 months rigorous punishment".
The respondent has also proved on record the insurance policy. Its Exclusion Clause 7(3) runs as follows :- "Exclusions : SBI Life shall not be liable to pay the benefits if the death, or, as the case may be, the Total and Permanent Disability of the Life Assured has happened or occurred due to or arisen out of, directly, any of the following acts or events :-
i. Suicide / attempted suicide within the first year of the GECW Home-Equity Loan;
ii. Self-inflicted injury : Intentional self-inflicted injury attempted suicide, murder, insanity or immorality or whilst the Life Assured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drug or narcotic
iii. substance;
iv. Drug abuse : xxxxx
v. War and civil commotion :xxxx
v to x : xxxxx".
The construction of contract/insurance policy entered into between the parties assumes importance. It is a settled law that court should refrain from any interpretation which would result in injustice and absurdity, AIR 1963 SC 25. The question to be considered is not what was intended, but what has been said. We cannot amend or substitute anything in the contract, as per law laid down in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 567, General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandmull Jain, 1966 ACJ 267 (SC), Harchand Rai Chandan Lal''s case, 2005 ACJ 570 (SC).
The murder finds place in the Exclusion Clause. Consequently, we find no force in the revision petition and dismiss the same, but before parting, we must explain the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Yashodhara of Nagpur. Vide order dated 30.06.2015, costs of Rs.5,000/- were imposed for restoration of the revision petition. The case was fixed for final arguments, for 01.07.2015. The petitioner deposited a receipt in the sum of Rs.500/- only implying that this Commission must accept the same as if it were Rs.5,000/-. This may be an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Advocate and/or a case of cheating. Notice be issued to the Advocate for the Petitioner as well her client, to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,500/-, within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, vide order dated 30.06.2015, otherwise, the same will be recovered by the Registry. The notice accompanied by the copy of this order.