K VAITHILINGAM Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in OP No.176/98 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli is the appellant in this appeal. The facts leading to the appeal are as under: the complainant's son one Kaliaperumal was insured with the opposite party on 17.5.1993. It was a double benefit policy and the sum insured was Rs.50,000. Under this double benefit policy, the nominee of the insured person would be entitled to Rs.1 lakh in case of death. However, the additional sum would not be payable if the disability or the death of the life assured was caused. (i) by intentional self-injury, attempted suicide, insanity or immorality or whilst the Life Assured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drug or narcotic; or (ii) it took place as a result of accident while the Life Assured is engaged in aviation or aeronautics in any capacity other than that of a fare-paying, part-paying or non-paying passenger in any aircraft which is authorised by the relevant regulations to carry such passengers and flying between established aerodromes, the Life Assured having at that time no duties on board the aircraft or requiring descent therefrom ; or (iii) be caused by injuries resulting from riots, civil commotion, rebellion, war (whether war be declared or not), invasion, hunting, mountaineering, steeple-chasing or racing of any kind ; or (iv) result from the Life Assured committing any breach of law; or (v) arise from employment of the Life Assured in the armed forces or military service of any country at war (whether war be declared or not ). The complainant's son Kaliaperumal was attacked by a group of people as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital where he breathed his last. While the Insurance Corporation paid the complainant a sum of Rs.53,350 being the basic sum assured and accrued bonus, it refused to pay the additional sum of Rs.50,000, stating that the injuries sustained by the said Kaliaperumal were caused as a result of a riot and, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to the accident benefit. It was also contended by the Insurance Corporation that the complainant had received Rs.53,350 in full satisfaction and the complaint was, therefore, not maintainable.

(2.) Certain more facts are necessary to appreciate the background in which the complaint came to be filed. On 11.3.1994, there was a festival at the Droupathi Amman Temple at Manapathur village. People from the nearby village of Mathur had come to attend the festival. Some of the boys who had come there indulged in eve-teasing. The elders there took them to task and sent them home to their village Mathur, 2 kms. away. The next day, some of boys from Mathur village came to Manapathur village, picked up quarrel with the people of Manapathur village and attacked them with logs, repers, in which several were wounded one of whom was the aforesaid Kaliaperumal who, as already stated, was taken to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for treatment where he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. There was a criminal complaint against several persons and in the criminal case they were acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt.

(3.) The main contention of the Insurance Corporation before the District Forum was that the deceased Kaliaperumal was the victim to riots which had sparked in the village and, therefore, as per the terms of the policy, the double benefit would not be available to the nominee of the Life Assured.