New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday refused to grant insurance claim to the authorized inheritor of a man who died of asphyxia due to excessive ingesting of alcohol, saying the insurer was solely liable to compensate a individual who sustains harm solely and instantly from the accident.
A bench of Justices M M Shantangoudar and Vineet Saran upheld the orders of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had stated that the demise was not unintentional and subsequently, the agency had no statutory legal responsibility to compensate the loss of life of the deceased as per the phrases of the Insurance Policy.
In the details and circumstances of the case, we don’t discover any cause to intrude with the impugned order dated April 24, 2009 handed by the National Commission.., the bench stated.
The high courtroom handed the decision on an enchantment filed by Narbada Devi, the authorized inheritor of the man employed as watchman (Chowkidar) with Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation (HPSFC), after he died on the thunderous and wet chilly night time of October 7-8, 1997, in Chopal Panchayat of Shimla district.
From a naked perusal of the Insurance Policy, it’s clear that provided that the insured sustains any bodily harm ensuing solely and instantly from accident brought on by outward, violent and visual means, the insurance firm can be liable to indemnify the insured, the bench stated, including that as per the insurance coverage, solely unintentional demise of the insured shall be indemnified.
It famous that the put up mortem report clearly signifies that there have been no accidents discovered on the physique of the deceased and the possible trigger of demise as per the ultimate opinion is asphyxiation brought on by alcohol consumption and regurgitation of meals into larynx.
As such, we discover it tough to conclude that the deceased’s demise was unintentional, the bench stated, including that in gentle of the specific phrases of the insurance coverage, we discover that the National Commission and the State Commission have rightly held that the deceased’s demise was not unintentional, and that the insurance firm wouldn’t be liable to settle the appellants’ claim.
According to the authorized inheritor of the man, on the morning of October 8, 1997, on the way in which to village Thundal, the deceased was present in a hapless situation round 9 am, smelling of alcohol.
The enchantment stated that within the autopsy report no harm was seen on any half of the physique and the trigger of demise was most likely asphyxia ensuing from regurgitation of meals articles into larynx and trachea after consumption of alcohol.
Under the Janta Personal Accident Insurance Scheme, the HPSFC had taken the insurance coverage for its 3,008 workers from the New India Assurance Company underneath with protection of Rs 1 lakh for these who go for the stated Scheme.
When Devi, made the claim for the demise of the man earlier than the insurance firm it repudiated the claim.
Aggrieved with the repudiation of the claim, she approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla alleging deficiency in service on half of the insurance firm and claiming insurance quantity of Rs. 2 lakhs together with curiosity and value.
The discussion board held that the insurance firm had wrongly repudiated the claim and was liable to make fee and indemnification of the insured quantity of Rs. 2 lakhs to the authorized inheritor of the man.
Aggrieved by the order, the insurance firm approached the state shopper fee, which held that the physique of the deceased didn’t have any exterior harm or mark of violence, and subsequently opined that the demise was not unintentional.
It stated that the insurance firm couldn’t be held liable underneath the insurance coverage however stated that HPSFC was liable to pay the compensation.
#mute
Aggrieved with the order HPSFC approached the NCDRC, which held that neither the insurance firm had any statutory legal responsibility to compensate the loss of life of the deceased nor the HPSFC has any legal responsibility underneath the coverage.Â
