2 days Ago By Sachin Sharma
Vadodara: A consumer court in Panchmahal came to the rescue of a man whose son died an unnatural death when he was hit by a moving train near a railway crossing. The insurance company refused the personal accident claim on the grounds that he had committed suicide. The son was made to take the policy by a bank from where he took a loan.
Mahendra Patel, a resident of Padardi village in Shehra taluka, took a loan of Rs 6.29 lakh from the bank in 2020. The bank told him that it was mandatory to take a personal accident (PA) policy from a private insurance company.
Pwas told that in case of his death, the remaining amount of the loan would be settled from the policy claim. On May 18, 2022, Mahendrakumar died due to a collision with a moving train near Saliya double crossing. His father, Gulabsinh Patel, who was the nominee of the policy, approached the insurance company for the sum assured, but his claim was turned down.
He then approached the bank, which said that if he paid Rs 2.11 lakh towards the pending amount of the loan, the bank would help him with reconsideration of the claim. Gulabsinh paid Rs 2.
11 lakh to the bank in instalments. When he approached the bank again on May 22, 2023, the bank sought more money. Unhappy with the situation, he sent a notice to the bank and the insurance company.
He then approached the Panchmahal consumer forum. The bank did not furnish a reply to the forum, but the insurance company justified its denial, stating that the company was not liable for any loss or damage under the policy arising out of any act of self-destruction or self-inflicted injury, attempted suicide, or suicide. It submitted a report by the insurance company's investigator.
The investigator also furnished a certificate from the police calling the incident a suicide. The forum observed that the report by the insurance company's investigator or the certificate given by the police did not mention any evidence or statements indicating that the victim committed suicide. It also pointed out that the petitioner, as well as the complainant about the accident, stated that it was an accident, but the insurance company was calling it a suicide.
The forum also observed that the evidence did not reveal that the loan amount was to be settled from the insurance claim. It ordered that the claim should be settled and the insurance amount should be paid to the petitioner with 6% interest. It also granted Rs 2,000 for costs and mental agony.
.
