Accidental Death By Poison In Jan Shatabdi Train, Evidence Does Not Suggest Suicide, NCDRC Orders LIC To Pay 10 Lacs Compensation And Claim Amount

Brief Facts of the Case:

The case in question involved the untimely demise of Jugal Kishor (“Deceased”), a passenger on the Jan Shatabdi train, who allegedly fell victim to an attempted robbery and subsequent poisoning. This incident transpired on 10th July 2010, leading to his admission to the Railway Hospital in Gangapur city and, subsequently, the SMS Hospital in Jaipur, where he tragically passed away on 11th July 2010. The deceased's brother, Banwari Lal Gupta (“Complainant”), sought an insurance claim from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (“Insurance Company”) for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, encompassing a double claim benefit for accidental death. The claim, however, was denied by the insurance company, which contended the nature of the deceased’s death, citing possible suicide as opposed to an accidental death due to poisoning. This denial prompted a the complainant to file a consumer complaint against the insurance company in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sawai Madhopur (“District Commission”). The District Commission dismissed the complaint. Thus, the complainant filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (“State Commission”) which allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Commission. Aggrieved, the insurance company filed a revision petition in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”).

The complainant argued that the insurance policy explicitly guaranteed a payout of Rs. 10 lakhs for accidental deaths. He asserted that the available evidence unequivocally indicated accidental death caused by external poisoning, discrediting the notion of suicide. He emphasized the absence of any evidence supporting the insurance company’s claim of suicide and highlighted that the deceased had no known issues with family, employment, or substance abuse.

The insurance company, on the other hand, challenged the claim by asserting that the presence of ethyl alcohol and aluminium phosphide in the deceased's reports pointed towards suicide rather than accidental death due to poisoning. They argued that such a scenario would trigger specific conditions in the insurance policy that absolved the company from liability. The insurance company further contended that the State Commission had erred in both interpreting the law and comprehending the factual details of the case. They pointed out that there was no conclusive evidence of external poisoning or theft, casting doubts on the validity of the accidental death claim. The insurance company questioned the State Commission's decision to allow the complainant’s initial appeal.

Observations by the Court:

The NCDRC began by evaluating the medical and forensic reports pertaining to the deceased. These reports indicated that the viscera of the deceased tested positive for aluminium phosphide and ethyl alcohol. While the insurance company argued that this pointed to suicide, the NCDRC emphasized that these substances did not conclusively prove that the deceased had committed suicide by ingesting them. The NCDRC took note of the absence of evidence provided by the insurance company to support the claim of suicide and highlighted the lack of reported issues in the deceased's life that could have triggered such an act.

Furthermore, the NCDRC considered the circumstances surrounding the incident itself. It noted that the deceased was traveling in a train compartment with other passengers, making it implausible for external parties to forcibly administer poison into the deceased's alcohol. The Police Final Report did not confirm that poison was administered within the alcohol, and no complaints of theft were lodged with the police by fellow passengers or conductors. These factors raised doubts about the validity of the suicide claim and supported the argument for accidental death.

Considering the totality of evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the NCDRC concluded that the available documents and records suggested a case of accidental death caused by poisoning. The NCDRC found that most of the evidence pointed towards the possibility of poisoning by unknown persons, thereby rejecting the insurance company’s contentions about suicide. As a result, the NCDRC upheld the State Commission's decision and directed the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs, including the insurance claim and benefits, along with 9% interest to the complainant.

Case: Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr vs Banwari Lal Gupta

Case No.: RP/2513/2019

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rao Ranjit

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Surya Prakash Gandhi, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order