New Delhi, March 22

The Supreme Courtroom on Monday refused to grant insurance coverage declare to the authorized inheritor of a person who died of asphyxia resulting from extreme consuming of alcohol, saying the insurer was solely liable to compensate an individual who sustains damage solely and instantly from the accident.

A Bench of Justices MM Shantangoudar and Vineet Saran upheld the orders of Nationwide Client Disputes Redressal Fee (NCDRC) which had mentioned that the loss of life was not unintended and subsequently, the agency had no statutory legal responsibility to compensate the lack of lifetime of the deceased as per the phrases of the Insurance coverage Coverage.

“Within the info and circumstances of the case, we don’t discover any purpose to intrude with the impugned order dated April 24, 2009 handed by the Nationwide Fee…,” the Bench mentioned.

The highest court docket handed the decision on an enchantment filed by Narbada Devi, the authorized inheritor of the person employed as watchman (Chowkidar) with Himachal Pradesh State Forest Company (HPSFC), after he died on the thunderous and wet chilly evening of October 7-8, 1997, in Chopal Panchayat of Shimla district.

“From a naked perusal of the Insurance coverage Coverage, it’s clear that provided that the insured sustains any bodily damage ensuing solely and instantly from accident brought on by outward, violent and visual means, the insurance coverage firm can be liable to indemnify the insured,” the Bench mentioned, including that as per the insurance coverage coverage, solely unintended loss of life of the insured shall be indemnified.

It famous that the autopsy report clearly signifies that there have been no accidents discovered on the physique of the deceased and the possible reason behind loss of life 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 loss of life was unintended,” the Bench mentioned, including that in mild of the specific phrases of the insurance coverage coverage, “we discover that the Nationwide Fee and the State Fee have rightly held that the deceased’s loss of life was not unintended, and that the insurance coverage firm wouldn’t be liable to settle the appellants’ declare”.

In keeping with the authorized inheritor of the person, 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 mentioned that within the autopsy report no damage was seen on any a part of the physique and the reason for loss of life was in all probability asphyxia ensuing from regurgitation of meals articles into larynx and trachea after consumption of alcohol.               

Below the Janta Private Accident Insurance coverage Scheme, the HPSFC had taken the insurance coverage coverage for its 3,008 workers from the New India Assurance Firm beneath with protection of Rs 1 lakh for many who go for the mentioned scheme.

When Devi, made the declare for the loss of life of the person earlier than the insurance coverage firm it repudiated the declare.            

Aggrieved with the repudiation of the declare, she approached the District Client Disputes Redressal Discussion board, Shimla alleging deficiency in service on a part of the insurance coverage firm and claiming insurance coverage quantity of Rs 2 lakhs together with curiosity and value.

The discussion board held that the insurance coverage firm had wrongly repudiated the declare and was liable to make cost and indemnification of the insured quantity of Rs 2 lakhs to the authorized inheritor of the person.              

Aggrieved by the order, the insurance coverage firm approached the state client fee, which held that the physique of the deceased didn’t have any exterior damage or mark of violence, and subsequently opined that the loss of life was not unintended.

It mentioned that the insurance coverage firm couldn’t be held liable beneath the insurance coverage coverage however mentioned that HPSFC was liable to pay the compensation.

Aggrieved with the order HPSFC approached the NCDRC, which held that neither the insurance coverage firm had any statutory legal responsibility to compensate the lack of lifetime of the deceased nor the HPSFC has any legal responsibility beneath the coverage. PTI