RAJASTHAN STATE Vs. VIDHYA JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Udaipur dated 15.5.2002 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent Smt. Vidhya Jha has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.2 lakhs under the Group Insurance (Accident) Scheme along with interest @ 9% p. a. and cost at Rs.5,000/-.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal in brief are that the assured Shri Shiv Shankar Jha was an employee of the Devasthan Department, Udaipur and had an insurance under Group Insurance Policy with the State Insurance and GPF Deptt. ; valued at 2 lakhs with a monthly (Sic) premium of Rs.55/- under the Salary Saving Scheme. It is the case of the respondent Smt. Vidhya Jha, the nominee under the policy and wife of the assured that her husband Shri Shiv Shankar Jha died an accidental death on 9.8.1997 when he had gone to take a bath in Fateh Sagar Lake around 9.30 a. m. When her husband did not return, a search was made and thereafter a report was lodged with Police Station, Amba Mata about his missing. When on 11.8.1997 it was learnt that a dead body is floating in the Fateh Sagar Lake then his son went to the spot and indentified the body and an information to this effect was also supplied to the Police Station. An inquest under Sec.174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also held by the police and it was found that the assured has died on drowning after he slipped at Fateh Sagar Lake. This fact was also affirmed on post-mortem of the body of the deceased. When a claim was advanced by the nominee under the policy to the respondent Insurance Department, it repudiated the claim vide their communication dated 28.10.1998 on the ground that the death of the assured was not accidental but that as he was not keeping mental good health, he has committed suicide.

(3.) The complaint filed before the District Forum was resisted by the appellant Insurance Department mainly taking the plea that it was the case of suicide and not of an accidental death and hence the complaint should be rejected.