Death Claim - Gbic.co.in

on the date of his murder. The LA was to report in a particular police station every dayas a part of conditional bail and on the fateful day his enemies intercepted the bus inwhich he was travelling and murdered him. As the LA’s murder was provoked by hisinvolvement in another crime, LIC interpreted that murder in this case does not fallwithin the scope of accident defined in the policy conditions. They also cited thejudgment given by NCDRC, New Delhi in appeal no.204 of 1999 in which the Hon’bleforum clarified when a murder amounts to accident. As per the Hon’ble Forum, if thedominant intent of the perpetrator of a crime is to kill a particular person, the actmurder cannot be called as an accident.The complainant contended that her husband had no criminal record. According to her,her husband was murdered due to mistaken identity. She further pleaded that as all theaccused in her husband’s murder were let off by the Sessions Court dealing with thecase, the murder should be treated as an accident. She further stated that shereceived similar accident benefit from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. under a policyno.61020/47/00438 for Rs.1 lakh on the basis of an award passed by the OFFICE OFINSURANCE OMBUDSMAN-HYDERABAD during 2005-06 under Award No.G-94.Decision: As the complainant made a reference to an old award of this office, the factsof the matter were carefully examined. The LA was murdered on 23.6.2000 and thefinal verdict of the Trial Court was given vide judgment dated 29.3.2005.All theaccused in the murder of the LA were let off by the court giving benefit of doubt infavour of the accused, for want of concrete evidence. The Trial Court observed severalloose ends in the presentation of case by the Prosecution. The manner in which the actof murder was committed clearly shows that the murder was a pre-planned act. Theinsurer referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Rita Devi & others Vs. M/sNew India Assurance Co. Ltd. Wherein the court held that the proximate cause ofmurder is to be looked into to decide whether a particular murder is to be treated as an‘Accident’ or not.This view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was discussed at length by theHon’ble NCDRC while considering Appeal No.204 of 1999 in the case between PrithviRaj Bhandari Vs. LIC & Others. While delivering the judgment, the Hon’ble NationalCommission reiterated the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held thatintent of murder is the primary factor to decide whether a murder is to be treated as anaccident or not. It was also held by the Hon’ble Commission that though the accusedwas not found in the case, the decision to treat the case as murder simplicitor wasarrived at on the basis of the nature of injuries inflicted on the victim.As the case of the LA in the present case is not a case of indiscriminate killing, themurder amounts to ‘murder simplicitor’ and not an accidental murder. The decisiongiven by this office under Award No.G-94-2005-06 cannot be taken as an establishedcase law, as the core issue of complaint at that time was condonation of delay. Further,the latest judgment of NCDRC was pronounced subsequent to the award No.G-94-2005-06. Hence it was decided to dismiss the complaint.Kochi Ombudsman CentreCase No. : IO/KCH/LI/21-001-115/2006-07Shri.A.V.ShijuVsLife Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward Dated : 17.10.2006