LIC OF INDIA Vs. PENTI ARUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 29.06.2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1167/2010, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) Vs. Smt. Penti Aruna and Ors., vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karim Nagar on 16.07.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 90/2009, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the late Penti Surender was the policy holder for ten life insurance policies, issued by the opposite party (OP), Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred as "LIC"), which covered risk to the insured for a sum of Rs. 19,75,000.00 and also to pay additional sum of Rs. 19,75,000.00 towards accidental benefits. The said Penti Surender went missing on 05.01.2007 and later on, his dead body was recovered on 18.04.2007 as per the police record. The complainant no. 1, Penti Aruna is the widow of the deceased, complainants no. 2 and 3 Penti Sanath and Penti Richich are the children of the deceased, while complainants no. 4 and 5, Penti Laxminarayana and Penti Amruthamma are the parents of the deceased. The father Penti Laxminarayana filed a complaint with the police at Karim Nagar about the missing of his son along with his motorcycle, bearing no. AP15K 7374 from 05.01.2007, following which the police registered crime no. 06/2007. During investigation, the police found the dead body of late Penti Surender on 18.04.2007 and he was reportedly murdered by one K. Sridhar and S. Geetha at Sripuram Colony, Karim Nagar. The police filed a charge sheet against the accused and the case against them is pending trial with the Sessions Court. It is stated in the consumer complaint that the LIC had paid the sum insured under all the policies, but denied to pay the accidental benefit on the ground that the death took place due to murder and hence, the claim was not payable. The complainants filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP LIC to pay the accidental benefit of Rs. 19,75,000.00 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death till actual payment.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP LIC by filing a reply before the District Forum, saying that ten different policies had been issued to the late Penti Surender, covering different sums in each case. However, the life assured had opted for accident benefit risk cover only in respect of six policies and the total risk cover for accident benefit worked out to be Rs. 8 lakhs and not Rs. 19.75 lakhs. The LIC stated that the body of the life assured was exhumed from the septic tank on 18.04.2007 in the presence of Executive Magistrate and police officials. It was found during investigation that the deceased had extra-marital relations with S. Geetha, which was not liked by the other accused K. Sridhar. The life assured used to visit the house of K. Sridhar many a time. The murder of the life assured was then planned and executed by K. Sridhar in collision with S. Geetha. Since this was a pre-planned, deliberate murder due to immoral behaviour on the part of the life assured, the claim was found not payable, even by the Zonal Claims Review Committee of the LIC. The LIC stated that the decision of the National Commission in the case Maya Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, as reported in III (2008) CPJ 120 (NC) was not applicable in the present case, because there was provocation on the part of the life assured and the murder being pre-planned and deliberate, the immediate cause of death was the result of wilful act of the insured. There was, therefore, no negligence on the part of the LIC in repudiating the claim.