DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No.543 of 2009 the opposite parties came up in appeal. Allowing the complaint the opposite party is directed to pay the insurance claim of Rs.3,60,000 to the complainants being the legal heris of deceased. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount will carry 12 per cent interest.

(2.) THE complainants are the wife and children of deceased Punnan. While availing loan from the District Co -operative Bank, a personal accident policy was issued having a coverage of Rs. 3,60,000. The bank had obtained the master policy for a period from 8.3.06 to 7.3.2021 from the appellant/opposite party for its beneficiaries. The husband of the 1st respondent died in a rail accident on 3.6.2009 while he was walking through the railway track near Velloor. The deceased was a real estate broker by profession and he used to travel various places in connection with his job. A claim was lodged before the opposite party which was repudiated by letter dated 10.9.2009. The death was reported as suicide by run over. The allegation of suicide is absolutely a wrong statement made by the opposite parties. There were no family problems, health problems or financial problems compelling the deceased to commit suicide. It is also stated in the complaint that the younger son of the deceased was working abroad and earning sufficient income so as to look after the family. The statement obtained by the investigator of the opposite party was misleading and the claim was not settled. This act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and challenged in the complaint.

(3.) IN the version filed by the opposite party, though admitting the issuance of the policy, it is stated that the policy is to be repudiated on the ground that it was a reported case of suicide. The insurance contract is bound by its terms and conditions. According to the personal accident policy, the suicide comes under exclusion clause. The opposite party obtained relevant documents including policy records and came to the conclusion that the death was due to suicide and the exclusion clause Section 2 clearly specified that the company shall not be liable under this policy for payment of compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured from suicide or attempted suicide. The repudiation was done as per the policy condition and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.