Judgment:
K. Ranga Rao, Member:
1. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Nellore being the opposite party in OP No. 555/1995 on the file of Nellore District Forum preferred this appeal questioning the order dated 25.9.1996 passed therein directing the Life Insurance Corporation of India (âLIC for short) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,12,000/- under 3 policies viz., No. 651105010 for Rs. 12,000/-, No. 650196069 for Rs. 1 lakh and No. 650196068 for Rs. 1 lakh together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of expiry of 3 months after the death of the life assured till the date of realisation and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/- within 3 months from the date of the order.
2. The case of the respondent herein who is the complainant before the District Forum is that her late husband Swayampakula Venkata Suryaprakasa Rao obtained 5 insurance policies bearing No. 650515961 for Rs. 25,000/-; No. 651105010 for Rs. 12,000/-; No. 650193678 for Rs. 25,000/-; No. 650196069 for Rs. 1 lakh and No. 650196068 for Rs. 1 lakh from the L.I.C., that she is the nominee under the said policies, that her husband Venkata Suryaprakasa Rao died on 3.3.1993, that when she made a claim for payment of the said policy amounts, the L.I.C. paid the amount of Rs. 25,000/- due under the policy No. 650515961, that subsequently the L.I.C. informed her that policy No. 650193678 was in a lapsed condition and that the amounts due under the 3 policies i.e., No. 65105010, 650196069 and 650196068 were not paid. She therefore filed a complaint before the Nellore District Forum against the Divisional Manager of L.I.C. of India, Nellore praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay the amounts due under the said 3 policies and also to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 500/-.
3. The opposite party filed a counter admitting the insurance of all the five policies mentioned in the complaint but contending that policy No. 650193678 for Rs. 25,000/- was in a lapsed condition, that because the assured died within two months after taking the policies bearing Nos. 650196068 and 650196069 for Rs. 1 lakh each investigation was made and the investigation revealed that the deceased husband of the complainant Venkata Surya Prakasa Rao committed suicide as he was heavily indebted to others on account of his bad ways of life and that having applied its mind the L.I.C. repudiated its liability to pay the amounts under the three policies and that there is no deficiency in service on its part.
4. At the time of enquiry the complainant filed some documents which were marked as Exs. A1 to A10 and the opposite party filed some documents which were marked as Exs. B1 to B18. No oral evidence was adduced by either party.
5. After considering the material on record the District Forum found that Ex. B5 investigation report relied upon by the opposite party to conclude that the deceased husband of the complainant committed suicide cannot be acted upon inasmuch as there is no acceptable material to show that the assured committed suicide and that the repudiation of the claims of the complainant by the opposite party is not justified and that the complainant is entitled to the amounts due under the three policies in question. Accordingly the District Forum passed the impugned order.
6. In this appeal preferred by the opposite party, the learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there is sufficient material to show that the deceased husband of the complainant was only a teacher in the Municipal High School, that he was indulging in betting and participating in the lotteries and share business and was borrowing heavy amounts from the third parties and he was under great pressure from creditors and suits were also filed in Civil Courts and, therefore, he committed suicide as revealed by the investigation made by Chief Controller, Suri Security Services and Consultants and that the fact that the assured was getting an annual income of only Rs. 65,000/- as mentioned in Ex. B3 proposal indicates that the assured was not having capacity to pay the premium amounts for the five policies he has obtained, that one V.V.B.M. Prasada Rao nephew of the assured also wrote a letter dated 16.9.1995 (Ex. B6) to the Branch Manager of the L.I.C. of India, Nellore stating that the assured was indebted to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs to the third parties, that one C. Ranganathan, a friend of the assured also wrote a letter dated 16.9.1995 (Ex. B7) to the Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Nellore stating that he went to the residence of the deceased on 3.3.1993 and found a bottle lying on the floor and that the inmates of the house told him that the assured swallowed some sleeping tablets and that he advised them to take the assured to the hospital and that all the circumstances clearly prove that the deceased committed suicide and that in the circumstances the opposite party is perfectly justified in repudiating the liability to pay the amounts payable under the policies in question.
7. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that the death of the complainants husband was due to Cerebro Vascular Accident, the Medical Officer of the Peoples Poly Clinic, Nellore where the complainants husband was admitted for treatment on 3.3.1993 also issued Ex. A3 certificate stating that the complainants husband Mr. S.V. Surya Prakasa Rao died of Cerebro Vascular Accident on 3.3.1993, that the said Medical Officer also reported to the Nellore Municipality about the death and cause of the death of the deceased husband of the complainant and the Nellore Municipality issued Ex. A2 death certificate stating that the deceased husband of the complainant was reported to have died on 3.3.1993 due to Cerebro Vascular Accident, that the statements said to have been given by V.V.B.M. Prasad Rao and C. Ranganathan to the Investigating Officer appointed by the L.I.C. about 2½ years after the death of the complainants husband stating that the complainants husband committed suicide due to heavy indebtedness to third parties cannot be relied upon and that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the complainants husband committed suicide and that in view of the categorical statement of the Medical Officer who attended on the complainants husband on 3.3.1993 to the effect that the complainants husband died of Cerebro Vascular Accident, the contention of the opposite party that the complainants husband committed suicide does not merit acceptance.
8. We have gone through the entire material on record. Ex. A2 certificate issued by the Nellore Municipality shows that the Medical Officer who gave treatment to the complainants husband on 3.3.1993 reported to the Municipality that the complainants husband Sri S.V. Surya Prakasa Rao died of C.V.A. (Cerebro Vascular Accident) on 3.3.1993 and Ex. A3 certificate issued by Dr. S. Ravindra of Dr. P.V. Ramachandra Reddys Peoples Polyclinic, Sankaragraharam, Nellore shows that the complainants husband died on 3.3.1993 at 4.40 p.m. due to Cerebro Vascular Accident. It is true that Ex. B5 report of the Investigating Officer appointed by the opposite party Insurance Company mentions that the information gathered by the Investigating Officer reveals that the complainants husband borrowed heavy amounts from the third parties and his indebtedness was to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000/-, that in view of the demands made by his creditors for payment of the debts, the complainants husband committed suicide and to that effect one Mr. V.V.B.M. Prasada Rao and one Mr. C. Ranganathan a colleague of the complainants husband also gave statements. It may be seen that Mr. V.V.B.M. Prasada Rao and C. Ranganathan were not examined before the District Forum and the complainant had no opportunity to cross-examine them. The said Prakasa Rao and Ranganathan gave statements to the Investigating Officer on 16.9.1995 about 2½ years after the death of the complainants husband. Except the statements of the said Prakasa Rao and Ranganathan there is no acceptable material to show that the complainants husband committed suicide. As the mere fact that the complainants husband borrowed heavy amounts from third parties as revealed by Exs. B9 to B11 xerox copies of promissory notes dated 15.9.1992, 5.5.1992 and 9.10.1991 for Rs. 60,000/-, Rs. 23,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- from Sri P. Sreeramulu Reddy and 2 others respectively cannot lead to an inference that the complainants husband committed suicide in view of his inability to discharge the said debts and as no creditor of the complainants husband came forward to say that the complainants husband was indebted to him and he committed suicide in view of his inability to discharge the debts, it is hard to believe that the complainants husband committed suicide particularly when the doctor who attended on the complainants husband on the date of his death categorically stated that the complainants husband died of Cerebro Vascular Accident. In the wake of Exs. A2 and A3 certificates showing that the complainants husband died of Cerebro Vascular Accident, there is heavy burden on the opposite party to show that the death of the complainants husband was not due to Cerebro Vascular Accident and that the complainants husband committed suicide. The material placed by the opposite party is not sufficient to discharge the said burden and there is no acceptable evidence to come to the conclusion that the complainants husband committed suicide and that his death was not due to Cerebro Vascular Accident. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the material placed by the opposite party is not capable of leading to a conclusion that the complainants husband committed suicide and that the repudiation made by the opposite party is not justified as was held by the District Forum. Accordingly we hold that the opposite party is liable to pay the policy amounts due under the three policies namely policy bearing No. 651105010 for Rs. 12,000/-, No. 650196069 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and No. 650196068 for Rs. 1 lakh.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant next contends that having directed payment of interest on the amounts due under the said three policies at the rate of 12% per annum, the District Forum should not have directed payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. We see sufficient force in this contention. Having directed payment of interest on the policy amounts the District Forum ought not have granted compensation of Rs. 5,000/- separately. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the direction of the District Forum to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is liable to be set aside.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified and the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is set aside and the order of the District Forum in other respects is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
Appeal partly allowed.