NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NALINI
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-7-4
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on July 14,2009

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
NALINI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE above appeal is preferred against the order dated 25th March, 2003 of the CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 36/02. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the first respondent as complainant against the appellant and the second respondent as opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 respectively claiming the insurance amount under the group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy. The complainant is the wife and nominee of the life assured V.K. Murali. The life assured had taken the aforesaid group Insurance Policy baring No. 570704/47/99/9600460 and 5705041/48/99/3901651. The life assured V.K. Murali died on 22.7.2001. The cause of death was drowning. The complainant being the nominee and wife of the life assured submitted the claim form. The opposite party/Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the strength of the exclusion clause in the policy. The opposite party/Insurance Company contended that the life assured died while under the influence of alcohol under the policy, death while under the influence of alcohol is excluded. Thereby the complainant preferred the above complaint in OP. 36/02.
(2.)BEFORE the Forum below P1 to P6 and R1 to R6 documents were marked from the side of the parties. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 (National Insurance Company Ltd.) to allow Insurance claim and to pay cost of Rs. 600 to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The third opposite party was the Secretary, Catholic Labour Association. The Group Insurance Policy was introduced to the members including the life assured V.K. Murali through the third opposite party.
(3.)WHEN this appeal was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (complainant and third opposite party). We heard the learned Counsel for the appellants (opposite party Nos. 1 and 2). He submitted this arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on Ex. R3 Post -mortem Certificate and Ext. R6 copy of the relationship certificate and argued for the position that the life assured V.K. Murali died while he was under the influence of alcohol. Thus, the appellants justified their action in repudiating the Insurance claim put forward by the complainant. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants) can be justified in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the first respondent/complainant?

2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.3.2003 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP 36/02?

Point 1 and 2



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