PADMA RAMANATHAN Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question involved in this complaint is - Whether death caused due to drowning in a swimming pool can be considered to be accidental death in terms of the insurance policy, which provides that the Insurance Company will pay to the insured or his legal representative if at any time during the currency of this policy the insured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external, violent and visible means. In our view, in the present case, the death caused to the insured is an accidental death as it was not natural and that the insured did not intend to die by drowning. Violent means includes any external, impersonal cause, such as drowning or inhalation of gas or even undue exertion on the part of the assured. In such cases, the death is not due to internal cause and that any cause which is not internal must be external. But this does not mean that the injury must be external. This is the law settled in England for the identical terms of insurance policy. Late Mr. N. Ramanathan was a partner of S. R. Batliboi and Co. , a firm of Chartered Accountants. The firm had obtained a partners personal accident insurance policy from National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Co.) for the period between 19. 6. 96 and 18. 6. 97 for a total sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. On 14th July, 1996, the insured went for swimming along with his children and wife at Madras Gymkhana Club around 6. 15 p. m. At about 7. 25 p. m. the insured took his children out of the pool and instructed his wife to attend their shower and change of clothes. After 5 to 7 minutes when the wife of the insured came to the pool area she found commotion at the pool as someone was found at the bottom of the pool. When the body of the deceased was pulled out by a couple of co-swimmers she came to know the drowned person was her husband. The insured at that time was unconscious. Extensive efforts were made by persons present at the pool site to revive the insured. As they could not succeed in their efforts, the insured was rushed to the Apollo Hospital where he was declared dead at 2. 15 A. M.

(2.) THE firm which took the policy informed the insurance company about the death of the insured on 19. 7. 1996. The Complainant (wife) also informed the Opposite Party about the death of her husband. The insurance company repudiated the claim by their letter dated 10. 09. 1999 wherein it has been stated as under:-

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a similar claim of insurance was settled by two other insurance companies. Thereafter, after hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties exhaustively, by Order dated 21. 11. 2007 the Insurance Company was given an opportunity to reconsider its stand, after taking into consideration the settlement made by the Life Insurance Corporation as well as by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in similar matter. However, the Insurance Company had taken the stand that it is not possible to settle the matter and that it requires to be decided on merits.