S THYAGARAJAN Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners is aggrieved by the letter written by the manger of the Unit Trust of India dated December 27, 1985, by which the claim for payment of the insured amount on the death of his wife in whose favour a policy had been taken has been rejected. Her death is alleged to have been the result of negligence on the part of one Dr. Sulochana Gunasheela resulting in accidental death.

(2.) The letter impuguened in the petition states that the death of the petitioner's wife does not fall within the definition of "accident" as laid down in the rules of the scheme. It also refers to the fact that the petitioner had admitted that his wife suffered from fibroids inuterus at the time of joining the Unit Linked Insurance Plan, 1971, which had not been disclosed and that, therefore, the petitioner's claim was rejected.

(3.) It is difficult to hold the death due to the alleged negligence of the doctor should be equated to a death by accident. one decision of the Kerala High Court, relied upon by the learned counsel, does no more than state a factory workers, thought murdered when he was outside the factory, was entitled to claim workmen's compensation as if it was on account of an accident that occurred inside the factory premises. The reasoning , correctly is that the factory worker went outside the factory for the purpose of the work of the factory and, in the course of the work, he was murdered, and, Thoman (1979) 54 FJR 556 (Ker)). That was a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and it is benificially construed in favour of the workman who was unfortunate enough to have been killed by some persons when he was performing errand for his employers who were the factory owners.