An individual who had not been heard of for seven consecutive years can be declared dead as per law.
But that may not be sufficient to claim life insurance amount in case of a dispute over the expiry of policy period and so the date of death should also be fixed by letting in evidence before a court of law, the Madras High Court Bench here has held.
Justice S. Nagamuthu made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by Kodiammal alias A. Meenatchi of Theni district in 2009.
The petitioner had sought for a direction to Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) to disburse an insured amount of Rs.65,000 following the sudden disappearance of her husband since 1999 — more than two years after he took the insurance policy.
According to the petitioner, her husband Andisamy had taken the policy on May 15, 1996, and went missing since January 2, 1999, the day when he was last seen alive. Thereafter, he had reportedly not established any contact with his family members, relatives, friends, colleagues and other acquaintances. Efforts taken by the petitioner to trace him out also turned futile.
Hence, she filed a civil suit before the District Munsif Court in Theni in 2007 and sought for a declaration that her husband was dead. The Collector, Superintendent of Police and the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, where her husband was working before his disappearance, were included as defendants in the suit.
During trial, all the three defendants remained ex-parte and the District Munsif, by a decree passed on November 29, 2007, declared Mr. Andisamy dead.
Armed with the decree, the petitioner laid a claim before the LIC for payment of the insurance amount along with interest. But the amount was not paid. Hence, the present writ petition.
Contesting the case before the High Court, the counsel for LIC claimed that the policy taken by the petitioner’s husband had lapsed on December 15, 1998 — much before his reported disappearance — for non-payment of premium amount and hence she was not eligible for any amount. However, the petitioner’s counsel disputed the claim.
Stating that such disputed questions could not be resolved through a writ petition, the judge said: “The presumption, under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, is only limited to the extent of presuming the death (if a person was not heard of seven long years) and not the date of death. The date of death is a matter to be proved by means of evidence.”