IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7208 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:14.09.2011 Meena wd/o Shri Sandeep son of Shri Om Prakash Rathee, resident of Village Busana, District Sonipat, Haryana. ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana, through Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Social Justice & Empowerment Department, Haryana, Chandigarh (UT), and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. B.S.Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondents 1 to 4. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for a claim for an insurance cover for death of her husband. The policy coverage under the policy spelt out as follows:- “3. Coverage (i) Death/permanent total disability/disability due to accidents like: (a) rail/road/air accidents; (b) riot, strike and terrorism; Civil Writ Petition No.7208 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - (c ) snake bite, drowning; (d) poisoning, electrocution; (e) falling from height, collapse of house/building; (f) fire, explosion, implosion; (g) murder; (h) attack by animals; (i) stampede and suffocation etc; (j) frost bite, sun burn (loo), lightening; (k) burn injuries. (ii) Death/permanent total disability/disability due to occupational hazards like threshing machine/industrial machine etc. and due to any other unnatural events except the following:- (a) from- (d) war and allied perils; (e) nuclear risks; (f) self injury, suicide or attempted suicide, or (b) whilst- (a) under the influence of alcoholic drinks or drugs; (b) engaging in aviation activities other than travelling as a passenger; (c ) breaching any law with criminal intent” Civil Writ Petition No.7208 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - 2. The counsel says that the death, that has happened to the petitioner's husband, must be taken as falling within the contingency contemplated as “due to any other unnatural events”. The petitioner's husband died due to fever. It cannot be taken an unnatural event. It is a way of dying and the unnatural death that the policy contemplates is explained in the coverage itself as resulting either by an accident in the various ways or through an occupational disease. It further excludes certain other types of death resulting from war etc. A death due to fever is not an event which is contemplated to entitle the legal representatives to make a claim. The claim has no legal basis and it deserves dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 14.09.2011 sanjeev