CAUSE TITLE:
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. The Chief Electoral Officer & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
08 February 2023
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka
PARTIES:
Appellant: National Insurance Company Ltd.
Respondent: The Chief Electoral Officer & Ors.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), set aside a judgement of the Patna High Court and held that if death is caused because of sun-stroke during election duty, then it will not come within the scope of ‘accidental deaths’ as provided in the insurance policy. The decision came after an officer died due to sun stroke while performing his electoral duties.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the appellants and Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar
- Clause 3 - Scope of Cover - The insurance is intended to provide for the payment of compensation in the event of death only resulting solely and directly from an accident caused by external violence and any other visible means.
Indian Contract Act, 1872
- Section 182 - An 'agent' is a person employed to do any act for another, or to represent another in dealings with a third person. The person for whom such an act is done, or who is so represented, is called the 'principal'.
BRIEF FACTS:
- In 2002, the Appellant insurance company and Respondent No.1, the Chief Electoral Officer of Patna, Bihar entered into an MoU to provide insurance cover to those deployed for election duty during the Bihar State Assembly Elections, 2000.
- Clause 3 of the said MoU was the relevant Clause which dealt with the scope of cover and said that “The insurance is intended to provide for the payment of compensation in the event of death only resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external violence and any other visible means.”
- The deceased was the husband of Respondent No.2 and a member of the Static Armed Force who died due to a sunstroke while performing his election duties for the Bihar State Assembly elections.
- The deceased passed away within the period of insurance cover. In 2008, his wife and Respondent No.2 asked for compensation through a letter to the Election Officer Patna, Bihar. The Assistant Election Officer denied the compensation on the ground that the death was caused due to a sunstroke and not on account of any external violent accident.
- Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 filed a Writ Petition, CWJC No.1781/2011, before the Patna High Court seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs as per the insurance policy as her husband passed away while performing his election duties. The Court relied on the judgement passed in Lilawanti Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors., and held that such a claim cannot be raised after the expiry of the given policy and that the primary responsibility to raise the claim under the insurance policy was with the electoral officers which they failed to do. The Court placed the liability to pay the amount to Respondent No. 2 on the Chief Electoral Officer and the District Magistrate, Vaishali.
- Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the Chief Electoral Officer before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court against this order dated 17.05.2011.
QUESTIONS RAISED:
- Whether Respondent No.2 was entitled to claim insurance amount under the MoU or not.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
- The Appellant contended that the Assistant Election Officer is endeavouring to transfer the liability on them even though he admitted his liability towards Respondent No.2 in the writ petition and paid the claim amount.
- It was further contended by the Appellant that the cause of death being a sunstroke was not even covered within the scope of Clause 3 of the MoU.
- Furthermore, the notice of the claim was made On the issue of time period within which years after the writ petition was filed by the Respondent No. 2 and not within the time period when the policy was active.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1:
- The Respondent No.1 contended that as per the letter dated 10.02.2000, the primary responsibility to raise the claim for insurance amount was on the wife of the deceased. The said claim was raised by the wife in 2008, seven and a half years after the death of her husband.
- It was further contended that the role of Respondent No.1 was limited to forwarding the insurance claim, which it duly did. The deceased passed away during the period when the insurance policy was active, the insurance company is liable to pay.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- The Ld. Court observed that a plain and strict reading of the insurance policy will be the guiding principle to interpret it. The Court relied on the 2019 case of Alka Shukla vs Life Insurance Corporation Ltd, to determine what constitutes an “accidental death” in the context of an insurance policy.
- The Court further noted that the existence of a proximate cause between the accident and the body injury is essential to lay a claim within the insurance policy.
- The Court also noted that the wife failed to make a claim within the prescribed time to the Chief Electoral Officer. It was held that filing a claim under the policy was a duty of Respondent no.1.
CONCLUSION
The Ld. Court set aside the judgement of the Patna High Court and held that the cause of death of the husband of Respondent No.2 does not come within the scope of the insurance policy and thus, the appellant is not liable to pay. The Court also held that the compensation amount already paid by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2 as per the judgement of the learned Single Judge cannot be allowed to be recovered as it would be inappropriate.
