Whether insurance claim can be recovered if death is due to heart attack?

A plain reading of the cover Clause in the M.O.U. would make it clear that it is intended to impose a twofold limitation. A death in order to qualify for the insurance cover must not only be accidental but the accident causing death must itself result from some external, violent and other visible means. This two fold limitation is based on what is called, in the Law of Insurance, the distinction between 'accidental result' and 'accidental means'. An unexpected and unforeseen consequence or result from a normal or routine activity may constitute an accident but it would not qualify as 'accidental means'. Thus, if a person suffers a fatal heart attack while dancing (considered to be a normal activity) the death may be called 'accidental' but it would fail to attract the insurance cover because it was not due to 'accidental means'. On the other hand, if a person dies due to heart attack suffered as a result of over-exertion on being chased by a ferocious dog (an unintended occurrence, and not a normal activity) the death might attract the insurance cover as it was caused by 'accidental means'.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3413 of 2019 

Decided On: 24.04.2019

Alka Shukla  Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Print Page

When LIC should not reject prayer for disclosure of information under RTI?

 If it is seen that as per the own information of LIC, the
petitioner was a member of the Trust, as rightly submitted by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, the concept of a fiduciary
relationship would also extend to the relation between the
petitioner and LIC and this being so, the petitioner cannot be
treated as third party, to whom the information sought for in the
application, can be denied.
 As regards the other reason for denying the
information to the petitioner, I must say that the principle of
public domain would have no application to the present case,
rather the principle of personal information of a party would have
application to the present case. The petitioner, being a party to
the information and being not possessed with it and the
respondent no.3 being in its possession, the petitioner would be
entitled to receive the information sought for by him. Viewed in
this way, I find that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.654 of 2015
Shri Rohidas A. Naik,

Versus
Central Information Commission,


CORAM :- S. B. SHUKRE, J.
Date : 13 th January, 2016.
Citation;AIR 2016 Bombay 95

Print Page