West Bengal

Bankura

CC/8/2024

Hena Sutradhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

Ardhendu Sekhar Ghosh

06 Aug 2024

ORDER

  IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No.08/2024

         Date of Filing:  11/01/2024

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                                     Ld. President      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui                    Ld. Member

3.Smt Kabita Acharjee Goswami          Ld. Member

 

For the Complainant:Ld. Advocate Ardhendu Sekhar Ghosh

For the O.P.: Ld. Advocate Ashim Kumar Mondal

 

Complainant:

Hena Sutradhar, W/O-Late Sanjoy Sutradhar, Vill-Panktore, P.O-MTPS, P/S-G.ghati, Dist-Bankura, Pin-722133, Mob-9134799526

Opposite Party:

The Branch Manager,Life Insurance Corporation of India,Bankura Branch,Nutanchati,P.O-Bankura,Dist-Bankura,Pin-722101

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT        

                                                                                                                                                   

 

Order No.09

Dated:06-08-2024

Both parties file haira through Advocate.  

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder:-

The Complainant’s case is that her husband Late Sanjoy Sutradhar purchased one LIC Policy (New Jeevan Anand Policy)  No. being 487983912 with Sum Assured Rs.3 Lakh and Accidental Sum Assured Benefit Rs.3 Lakh commencing from 26/08/2015 and due to mature on 26/08/2032 nominating the Complainant as wife. On 07/08/2016 said Policy holder was murdered which was registered as Gangajalghati P.S. Case No.116/16 u/s 302 I.P.C. dated: 07/08/2016. Post Mortem Examination was held over the dead body and according to the Autopsy report death was due to effect of Antemortem and homicidal in nature.

                                                                                                                                                                                Contd……p/2

Page: 2

The Complainant being the wife/nominee claimed both Sum Assured Rs.3 Lakh and Accidental Death Benefit Rs.3 Lakh before the O.P./Insurance Co but the claim was settled in part by payment of Rs.3,88,500/- to the Account of the Complainant on 20/01/2017 being the Sum Assured Value with Bonus as per terms and condition of the Policy but the Accidental Death Benefit Claim of Rs.3 Lakh has been withheld by the O.P./Insurance Co..Thereafter the Complainant by sending letter dated: 12/05/2021 and legal Notice dated: 21/12/2023 requested the O.P./Insurance for  releasing the Accidental Death benefit of the insured. In reply O.P./Insurance Co. through Advocate sent a letter dated: 29/12/2023 to the Complainant stating that Rs.3,88,500/- with Bonus is the full and final settlement of the claim as the Complainant is not entitled to get the Accidental Death Benefit of the insured which arose out of an incident of homicide which cannot be considered as an accidental death. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

O.P./Insurance Co. contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that the F.I.R. lodged in the aforesaid case ended in charge sheet followed by Session’s Trial No.228/2018 which reveals that it is a clear case of murder due to own involvement and association of the insured in extortion business and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for in this case.

-: Decision with reasons:-

Having regard to the facts of the case, contention, submission, and documents on both sides the Commission finds that it is an admitted case that the insured Sanjoy Sutradhar died a homicidal death as is evident from the F.I.R. and Charge sheet on record.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has urged the Commission to consider the prayer of the Complainant treating the unnatural homicidal death of the insured as an accidental death in view of the decision reported in Maya Devi Vs. L.I.C. of India reported in III (2008) CPJ 120 NC.

But the Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Insurance Co. has submitted before the Commission that the facts and circumstances in the above referred decision are distinguishable from the present facts and circumstances of the case as the homicidal death of the insured has been committed by the anti-group out of previous rivalry between the deceased and the anti-group in connection with extortion business.  

                                                                                    Contd…..p/3                                                                                                                                      

Page: 3

The Police Investigation has revealed this fact in the charge sheet though the aforesaid Session’s Case ended in acquittal of the accused persons but it is not on merit of the case with any finding to that effect. Neither side could produce the acquittal order at the time of hearing. However Charge Sheet materials which are on record prima facie shows that the deceased insured was murdered by the miscreants for his involvement and association with unlawful activities like extortion business. Unless contrary is shown from the acquittal order of the trial court to dislodge the unlawful activities behind the murder of the deceased insured police investigation report like the Charge Sheet can be used for limited purpose to decide the case for settlement of insurance claim.

In Maya Devi Case as referred to above, it has been held that homicide can be considered as an accidental death when such death is unintended and the insured is not a party or privy to it and from insured point of view it is  unexpected and not designed. But in this case murder of the deceased insured was motivated and willful as the victim having antecedent criminal background is a party or privy to the unholy nexus with the murderer. So the principle laid down in Maya Devi Case is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

Accordingly the Complainant’s case fails on merit.

Hence it is ordered…….

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.

 

      __________________                         ________________                    _________________        

 HON’BLE   PRESIDENT                 HON’BLE    MEMBER              HON’BLE    MEMBER