"Death of Policyholder patient due to Malaria after Mosquito Bite is an accidental death and hence Insurance Company is liable to pay the sum assured."

"Death of Policyholder patient due to Malaria after Mosquito Bite is an accidental death and hence Insurance Company is liable to pay the sum assured."

In an interesting Case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Mosumi Bhattacharjee, (R.P. No.1270/2016), a question came before the National Commission to decide whether death of a Policy holder due to Malaria after a mosquito bite can be termed as accidental Death ?

Facts in short.

1. Late Mr. Debashish Bhatacharjee, the husband of the Complainant took the home loan from Bank of Baroda and along with it, he also availed facility of Term insurance like policy by name "Bank of Baroda Loan Suraksha Vima", issued by the National Insurance Co. Incase of an accidental death, the policy amount was to be paid to the claimants

2. During the subsistence of the Policy, the Policy holder died due to Malaria and hence his legal heirs (LRs) applied to the Insurance Company fir getting the sum assured.

3. But the Insurance Company turned down the claim on the ground that Malaria itself is a disease and not an accident. Hence the LRs filed the complaint before the District consumer forum, which was allowed in their favour. Hence the Insurance Company filed the appeal in state commission, which was also rejected and hence the matter came to national Commission.

Held :

1. The National Commission upheld both the judgments of lower foras and observed that the Policy does not define the Term "Accident". It relied upon the definition of Accident given in oxford dictionary, wherein it is defined as "An Accident is something that happens unexpectedly and not planned in advance and causes injury".

2. Thus no one can predict about the mosquito bite and it can happen anywhere and anytime, like an accident. It relied upon the earlier judgment of Matbarsingh V/s Oriental Insurance Co.) wherein it has been held that Snake-bite, dog-bite, frost-bite are also accidents. It rejected the argument of the National Insurance company that Malaria itself is a disease and not an accident.

A) I feel this is an important judgment. Few days back, at least a person in every family was suffering from Dengue / chikungunya and Malaria. Few patients were succumbed to death due to such diseases.This judgment may be helpful to such  families. Obviously terms of Policy, if any, will play an important role.

B) This decision also underlines the importance of having Term Insurance like policies. Consult an expert in this field.

Compelling the Husband to separate from age-old parents by a wife amounts to Cruelty - Says Supreme Court

Narendra vs. K. Meena- Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in Narendra vs. K. Meena has held that separating a Hindu son, who has been brought up and offered education by his parents, and the son has an ethical and legal duty to take care and maintain the age old parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income”.

The Supreme Court bench has not even once mentioned in its above verdict about the wife’s parents but solely revolved around husband’s parents.

Thus, according to Supreme Court of India, compelling a husband to get separated from his Parents tantamount to ’cruelty.

Repeated threats to commit suicide by a wife – it amounts to cruelty

Observing that repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty, the Supreme Court observed:

“No husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life.

The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress. The thought itself is distressing.”

Compelling Separation from age-old Parents

Forcing separation from parents With regard to allegations of cruelty in wife forcing husband to get separated from his parents, the Bench observed: “In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason; she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her…. 

If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income.”

Wild allegation of extra marital affairs

The Court also observed that to suffer an allegation pertaining to one’s character of having an extra-marital affair is quite torturous for any person – be it a husband or a wife. Restoring the judgment of Trial court and setting aside the High Court judgment, the Bench said: “The behaviour of the wife appears to be terrifying and horrible. One would find it difficult to live with such a person with tranquillity and peace of mind. Such torture would adversely affect the life of the husband.”