LORD BUILDERS PVT LTD Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party. Joginder Singh, husband of the respondent/complainant was in Police Service. SSP, Bhatala took a Misc. Accident Insurance policy in respect of the officials of Bhatala Police District numbering 2064 and Joginder Singh was one of them. It was alleged that as Joginder Singh fell sick on 31. 7. 2000, he took leave and came to his village Shahapur Amargarh. He purchased certain medicines from medical store at Dehra Baba Nanak, the place of his posting. At about 10 p. m. , the electricity supply to the said village went off. It was stated that Joginder Singh due to darkness by mistake consumed pesticide which was kept on a slab along with the medicine. On electricity supply being restored, Joginder Singh realised that he had taken pesticide instead of medicine. While being taken to hospital, he died on the way. On claim for Rs. 1,00,000 under the said policy being lodged, the petitioner-Insurance Company repudiated the same on ground of life assured having committed suicide. Complaint alleging deficiency in service filed by the respondent was contested by the respondent on identical ground. However, the District Forum while allowing complaint directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1 lakh with interest. Appeal filed by the petitioner against District Forum's order was dismissed by the State Commission holding that the death of life assured was accidental and not suicidal as also found by the District Forum.

(2.) CONTENTION advanced by Ms. Anjali Bansall for petitioner was that the awarded amount is not payable under Clause 1 of the policy in question (copy at p-28) inasmuch as the death was not caused by external violence and visible means. Written version (copy at pp 54-58) would show that such a plea was not taken therein nor the same seemed to have been raised before any of the Fora below. In revisional jurisdiction, petitioner-Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise altogether a new point. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.