NANDINI JAYARAJAN Vs. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of late P.B. Jayarajan, a workman in the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The petitioner's husband P.B. Jayarajan, died on 30.12.2005, was an employee of the BPCL and while working in Kochi Refinery and at the time of accident, he was working in the course of employment, in the Kochi Refinery. The late P.B. Jayarajan was an insured employee under a scheme of Insurance Policy, namely, Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (GPAI). Under the said Scheme, BPCL/Kochi Refinery used to pay the premium on his behalf to the respondent Insurance Company and in the event of death or bodily injury to any workman, while on duty, the Insurance Company will indemnify the company and pay the compensation amount to the injured/dependents of deceased workman. While so, the petitioner's husband died on 30.12.2005, while attending a Hydrogen Sulphide gas leakage in gas pipeline in sulphur recovery unit of the diesel hydro desulphurication Plant of Kochi Refinery. At about 10.15 a.m., while Jayarajan was tightening the bolts in the flange of the leaking pipe, he suddenly became unconscious and fell backwards on the platform. He was first taken to the Occupational Health Centre (OHC) of the refinery and then to Vijayakumaran Memorial Hospital, Tripunithura, where it was certified that he was brought in dead. The sad and sudden death of Jayarajan was immediately reported to the police and F.I.R. No. 218 of 2005 dated 30.12.2005 was registered on the basis of the First information Statement given by the informant. Thereafter, based on the postmortem findings, clinical findings and other corroborating circumstances, the final opinion of the cause of death was issued by the Police Surgeon, the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Allappuzha. The opinion as to the cause of death reads thus: 'There is no evidence of natural disease or violence to account for death. Possibility of death due to inhalation of poisonous gas cannot be ruled out".

(2.) The petitioner filed a claim under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy Scheme, to which his late husband was a beneficiary. But, the Insurance Company arbitrarily repudiated the claim on the ground that the chemical analysis of the deceased revealed that he was highly intoxicated at the time of accident, even though the reason for his death reported by the Police Surgeon and by investigating officer alike was due to inhalation of Hydrogen Sulphide, and there was no reference to alcohol consumption by the deceased. The 1st respondent also upheld the total repudiation of the claim.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(C). No. 32243 of 2008 before this court, challenging the order dated 30.04.2008, rejecting the claim by the Ombudsman. This Court, after elaborate consideration of the matter in issue, quashed the order of the Ombudsman dated 30.04.2008 and directed to reconsider the complaint, after affording an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence for and against, including the oral evidence of expert, etc., and to pass a fresh award.