LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SHANTI TEGTA
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-11-6
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on November 12,2010

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
Shanti Tegta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, H.P. on 6.1.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 146/2007 titled as Shanti Tegta V/s. LIC of India and Another, has been challenged by the appellant LIC in the present appeal.
(2.) ADMITTED facts of the case are that the husband of the respondent Smt. Shanti Tegta was holder of two LIC policies bearing Nos. 150481942 and 150034275, who met with unnatural accidental death by sustaining multiple injuries on vital parts of his body by falling down from the window. The fact of injuries to vital parts by fall is not disputed by the parties. The claim was lodged by the respondents with the appellant after completion of codal formalities. The appellant declined to pay the double accident benefit, though the basic sum assured arising out of two policies amounting to Rs. 3,16,245 along with allbenefits already stood paid. The dispute was only qua the double accident benefit. As per respondent, she was entitled to double accident benefit as per policies, but the version of the appellant is that since the deceased insured died not because of injuries to vital parts, but because of intoxication as he was under the influence of liquor at the time when he died and so consumption of liquor was the cause of death and not the accidental injuries.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, as well as have gone through the record of the case. Mr. G.D. Sharma who appeared as Counsel for the appellant has forcefully argued that the basic sum assured stands already paid to the respondent. According to Mr. Sharma, the double accident claim was not payable to the respondent as the deceased life assured died due to heavy consumption of liquor and not due to injuries suffered by him. He refers to post mortem report in which it has been clearly mentioned that "death took place due to haemorrhagic shock secondary to injuries to vital organs while under the effect of alcohol". As per Mr. G.D. Sharma death took place due to alcohol as mentioned in post mortem report. Mr. Sharma argued that the post mortem report was reviewed on an application of respondent. 2nd report contradicts the 1st report. So as per Mr. Sharma 1st report is to be believed and not the 2nd one. It is on these grounds he prayed that his appeal be accepted and the decision of District Forum below be set aside on the basis of arguments raised by him.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.