IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 34985 of 2001(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MRS. LISAMMA JOSE, NADUVLEDATH HOUSE, ANCHELETTY.P.O., PIRAVAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE MANAGER, CLAIMS DEPARTMENT, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.SUBRAMANI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 34985/2001-M: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PREMIUM RECEIPT DTD. 28/01/99 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, KALOOR BRANCH, L.I.C. TO N.J. JOSE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE VOUCHER SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 18/04/2001. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PREMIUM RECEIPT DTD. 10/10/2000 ISSUED TO N.J. JOSE. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DTD. 07/08/2001. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/08/2001 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 41/2001 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT. NO.I. ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE POSTMORTEM CERTIFICATE DTD. 18/02/2001 ISSUED BY DR. RAJESWARI. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. NAMBOOTHIRI DTD. 22/09/2001. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE INQUEST REPORT IN CRIME NO. 41/2001 PREPARED BY THE MULAMTHURUTHY POLICE (RELEVANT PORTION). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R1: COPY OF THE POLICY OF INSURANCE NO. 773229448 ISSUED ON THE LIFE OF LATE N.J. JOSE. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P.No.34985 of 2001-M. ========================= Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the widow of late Sri.N.J.Jose who died on 17.2.2001 in a road accident. The claim raised in this original petition is for the grant of double accident benefit covered by the policy No.773229448 dated 28.1.1999. 2. The accident occurred on 17.2.2001. After the original policy and the documents were produced before the LIC, the respondent sent a voucher for Rs.1,13,834/- evidenced by Ext.P2. The same represents the claims in respect of the assured amount. The claim for double accident benefit was rejected by Ext.P5 stating that the life assured was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Clause 10(2)(b) of the policy condition is relied upon in support of the above findings. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.P.No.34985 of 2001-M. -: 2 :- there is no basis for rejection as it has not been established that the deceased was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the accident. The relevant clause is Clause 10 (2)(b) which is extracted below: “The Corporation shall not be liable to pay the additional sum referred in (a) or (b) above if the disability or death of the Life Assured shall: (i) be caused by intentional injury, attempted suicide, insanity or immorality or whilst the Life Assured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drug or narcotic.” Therefore, going by the same he should have been ‘under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drug or narcotic’ to take the claimant out of the purview of the benefit. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out, by referring to the postmortem certificate Ext.P7 that it will only show that ‘smell of alcohol’ was present. It is contended that the same will not conclusively show that the life assured was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 5. Relying on the averments of the counter affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that going by the terms of the policy, the decision taken by the authority is perfectly justified. It is stated in para.4 of the counter affidavit O.P.No.34985 of 2001-M. -: 3 :- that the postmortem certificate will reveal that smell of alcohol was found inside the body of the life assured at the time of postmortem. Besides the fluid cut section had smell of alcohol and in view of the above circumstances the claim was rejected. 6. It is evident from the postmortem certificate, as noticed above that the only observation therein is that there is smell of alcohol. Apart from this document there is no other evidence to show that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Going by the terms of the policy what is required to reject the claim is by showing that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. There is total absence of any material to support such a finding. At any rate, going by the postmortem certificate what is revealed is only that the “stomach contains yellowish semi digested inside smell of alcohol present”. Merely because there was smell of alcohol it cannot be conclusively held that a person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Therefore, I am of the view that the stand taken by the respondent in Ext.P5 is clearly unsupportable. Ext.P5 is quashed. The respondent is directed to O.P.No.34985 of 2001-M. -: 4 :- disburse the double accident benefit to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is allowed as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-