Woman ‘gave consent’ to get killed by husband, says court while denying insurance claim | Crime News
Surat: Rejecting the rupees 15 lakh insurance claim of the son of a woman, who was murdered by her husband, the Valsad consumer court claimed that it was not a murder but a suicide. The police had registered the case as a murder in 2008 but filed an abated summary due to the husband’s suicide.
The consumer commission concluded that since the deceased woman did not resist her husband, she was a participant in a plot to fraudulently claim the “accident insurance.” They further stated that her “non-resistance” indicated that her death was not an accidental murder but a “suicide or self-inflicted death”.
Also Read: 9 reasons why companies can reject your vehicle insurance claims | Utility News – News9live
The case history reveals that Aruna Desai, a resident of Valsad, had taken a personal loan of Rs 15 lakh in December 2007, the Times of India reported. Along with the loan, she had also obtained a personal accident policy of the same amount, valid from December 21, 2007, to December 20, 2008.
When all this started
On December 12, 2008, Aruna and her husband, Ranjit Desai, went to a temple in Dharampur, Valsad. They stayed in room number 21 of the temple guest house. Ranjit, who was suffering from cancer, committed suicide by hanging himself from a fan. Before taking his own life, he strangled his wife with a muffler. He left a suicide note stating that he had killed her.
Also Read: Family of Telangana govt employee, who faked death to claim insurance money, also part of plan, arrested: Police | Telangana News – News9live
Why Insurance company rejected insurance claim of her kin
Jimit, the son of Aruna, informed the insurance company about the incident on December 15, 2008, and filed a claim for Rs 15 lakh. However, the insurance company rejected the claim, stating that Ranjit intentionally murdered Aruna, which does not fall under the definition of an accident.
Less resistance shows her consent to be killed
The case went to the Surat Consumer Court, which ruled in favour of the claimant. The insurance company appealed the decision, and on March 6, 2021, it was accepted to be heard in the proper jurisdiction. It was then transferred to the Valsad consumer forum.
In the court, the complainant argued that Aruna did not know that she would be killed on that day and cited the suicide note as evidence of an accident. However, the insurance company argued that the incident was pre-planned by the family to avoid repayment of the loan. As there were no injury marks on Aruna’s body, it was suggested that she did not resist, indicating her consent to be killed.
Also Read: SC raps UP Bar Council for inaction on lawyers submitting fake insurance claims | India News – News9live
Court says ‘suicide not murder’
The court accepted the insurance company’s arguments, noting that according to the PM report, there were no injury marks on Aruna’s body. It concluded that if she had not been involved in the conspiracy, she would have resisted. Therefore, the incident is considered a “suicide” under the general exclusion clause of the policy. The court upheld the insurance company’s decision to reject the claim, thereby rejecting the complainant’s application.
