Murder Without Deliberate Act Of Insured To Be Treated As Accident For Insurance Claims, Says NCDRC [Read Order]

Asks insurance firm to make its terms and conditions clear apropos ‘murder’Reiterating that murder of an insured person has to be treated as accidental death if the murder was not the result of any deliberate act of the insured himself, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has come down heavily on insurance companies for not making terms and conditions of their policies clear with regard to ‘murder’ while directing the insurer in the instant case to discontinue its unfair trade practice apropos ‘murder’ with immediate effect.“It is reasonable and logical to conclude that a person takes personal accident shield insurance policy to insure himself against accidental injury resulting in death caused by an unexpected and unintentional incident. In this case, there was no immediate deliberate willful act by the insured that led to his murder. Putting himself to risk of injury by immediate wilful deliberate act or carelessness or instigation or aggression etc. is not evident. Death was due to unexpected and unintentional incident i.e. an accident. ‘Murder’ per se was not specifically excepted in the policy. Hence, in the facts of this case, the death was clearly accidental and was squarely covered by the policy,” said a bench of presiding member SM Kantikar and member Dinesh Singh.The commission also awarded compensation of Rs 4 lakh to the family for deficiency in service and for harassment caused due to unfair trade practice of the insurer company.In the instant case, Balram Mulchandani, a resident of Thane, Maharashtra, had taken personal accident shield insurance policy from M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period 05-11-2008 to 04-11-2009 for an assured sum of Rs. 20 lakh. He was getting the policy renewed from time to time. On January 21, 2009, Balram had gone to his office but did not return home.The family lodged a missing person complaint and the police arrested some persons who had murdered Balram following some property dispute.Balram’s son Pawan Mulchandani filed a death claim with the insurance company but it was repudiated on the ground that the death was not due to ‘accident’, but was a case of ‘murder simplicitor’. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the complainant approached the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which directed the insurer to pay Rs. 20 lakh along with interest of nine percent and cost of Rs. 25,000.The insurer approached the NCDRC in challenge and relied upon the judgment of the apex court in Rita Devi Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., wherein it was held that: “It is not as if every case of murder would be an accident. The murder too could be accidental, but would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case” and that if the dominant intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person, then such killing is not an accidental murder, but is a murder simplicitor, which was not within the scope of the policy.”The complainant, on the other hand, argued that the company had wrongly rejected their claim and relied upon the judgment of NCDRC in case titled Maya Devi vs. LIC of India wherein the insured person was shot dead following an altercation with a shopkeeper.Quoting from the Halsbury’s Law of England, which, while defining what is ‘accident’ said that “even willful murder may be accidental as far as the victim is concerned”, the commission had held in Maya Devi’s case that the death of the insured was accidental, because the immediate cause of injury was not the result of any deliberate or wilful act of the insured and the untoward event that had occurred was not expected or designed by the insured.The commission had further quoted from Halsbury’s Law of England to say in that “…if the immediate cause of the injury is the deliberate and wilful act of the insured himself, there would seem to be no accident, and no claim will lie under the policy, at any rate if the insured is not mentally disordered at the time of his act”.After hearing both sides, the commission referred to the case titled Nisbet vs. Rayne and Burn in which it was held that murder was an accident from the stand point of the person, who suffered from it.The commission also noted that murder was not excluded in the exception clause of the policy and upheld the order of the State Commission. It further directed the insurer to pay Rs. 4 lakh compensation to the family within four weeks.Exclusion clause, gaps and anomaliesWhile deciding the appeal, the commission stated that “Contra Proferentem Rule” applicable to insurance policies says that in case of ambiguities in the insurance policy the interpretation has to be done in favour of the insured.“In the case Maya Devi vs. LIC of India, this Commission also referred to the exclusion clause referred to under the policy. We have also gone through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question, under the heading ‘Exceptions’. Nowhere under the said clause it has been stated that...

Murder Without Deliberate Act Of Insured To Be Treated As Accident For Insurance Claims, Says NCDRC [Read Order]

akanksha jain

Tags