LEKHA Vs. MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question arises for consideration in this case. The Writ Petitioner is the wife of late Sunil Kumar P.P who was murdered on 6/5/2009 by one Mathew Antony ('the accused'). By Ext.P4 judgment of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Kalpetta, Wayanad district, aforesaid Mathew Antony was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of late Sunil Kumar. At the time of his death, the late Sunil Kumar was holding three life insurance policies bearing Nos.792075377, 793732239 and 791166804 with the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the LIC'). These policies were, admittedly, in force at the time of the death of Sunil Kumar. In addition to other benefits, all the above three policies had identical terms [Clause 10.2] providing what is called 'accident benefit'. It is not disputed before me that the terms providing for such a benefit were identical in all the three policies issued to the late Sunil Kumar. However, the LIC denied the claim for 'accident benefit' in terms of the aforesaid policies, upon the ground that the claim for accident benefit could not be granted on account of the exclusion clause forming part of Clause 10.2(b) of each of the policies issued to the late husband of the petitioner which to the extent relevant reads thus:-

(2.) The claim for accident benefit was repudiated by Ext.P5 communication, which reads as follows:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, by no stretch of imagination could it be said that the death of Sunil Kumar was on account of some immoral activity, even if it were to be assumed that the alleged illicit relationship between late Sunil Kumar and the wife of the aforesaid Mathew Antony was the motive for the murder. It is submitted that, in order to apply the exclusion clause, the death must have been on account of some immoral activity or while engaging in some immoral activity and since this is not the case here, the repudiation of the claim for accident benefit, as above, is illegal and unsustainable. Learned counsel places considerable reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rita Devi V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; 2000 KHC 400 to contend that even a claim in respect of a person who committed a felony and committed theft of an autorickshaw and died thereafter in an accident was maintainable before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Considerable emphasis is placed on paragraph No.12 of the aforesaid judgment in support of the contention that whatever be the motive behind the murder of late Sunil Kumar, from the point of view of his family, it was an accidental death and claim for accident benefit under the policies in question was therefore maintainable. Learned counsel also submitted that the policies were taken out intending that the family be adequately compensated if the insured dies (including accidental death) when the policy was alive, and the denial of the claim under the head of 'accident benefit' was, therefore, illegal and unsustainable. It is submitted that the Insurance Ombudsman ought not to have relied on Ext.P4 judgment of the Sessions Court to hold that the matter was covered by the exclusion clause.