Safiya Malik

The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur adjudicated in favor of a petitioner seeking the release of additional insurance benefits under a Group Insurance Scheme. The petitioner, currently serving as Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Border Security Force (BSF), had approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the partial settlement of an insurance claim following the demise of her husband, a Constable in the BSF, due to rabies contracted from a stray dog bite.

The petitioner was appointed in the BSF on compassionate grounds after the death of her husband, Late Constable Tej Rao Telgote, who passed away on 24.09.2009 due to rabies. The cause of death, as recorded by the NBMC&H Siliguri, was "Paraperesis with Aerophobia and Hydrophobia (Rabies)." He had been bitten by a stray dog while on duty at the 113th Battalion of the BSF stationed in Cooch Behar, West Bengal, on 23.08.2009.

Also Read: Section 197 CrPC | Prior Sanction Mandatory Even Where Acts Exceed Authority, If Reasonably Linked to Official Duty: Supreme Court

Initially, the petitioner received Rs. 5,00,000/- under the Group Insurance Scheme. Dissatisfied, she made multiple representations seeking the remaining sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which she asserted was payable under the "Double Accident Benefit" clause.

Her claim was that the death was accidental, having directly resulted from the stray dog bite. The Commandant of the 113th Battalion supported her representation, forwarding the case to higher authorities and recommending reconsideration.

However, LIC declined the additional benefit citing absence of an FIR and Final Police Investigation Report. The BSF authorities explained that no FIR could be filed as no post-mortem was conducted. The Unit had only managed to obtain a General Diary (GD) entry from the local police station.

The Court of Inquiry (SCOI) conducted by the BSF stated that:

• His death was due to "Paraparesis with Aerophobia and Hydrophobia (Rabies)" for which no one is to be blamed and his death is attributable to Government Service.

• All financial benefits including EOP be paid to the NOK of the deceased as admissible under Rule.

The petitioner contended that neither an FIR nor a post-mortem was mandatory under the insurance policy. She argued that the clause concerning Double Accident Benefit did not prescribe such requirements and that the dog bite was a sufficient cause to claim the additional compensation.

The respondents maintained that, in the absence of a post-mortem and an FIR, the death could only be classified as natural. They cited a communication dated 09.01.2012 wherein the cause of death was stated as natural.

The Court examined the definition of "accident" in light of the Insurance Scheme clause, which reads:

"If death of a member occurs directly from injuries caused by an accident by outward violent and visible means solely, directly and independently of all other causes, then Corporation shall pay an additional Sum equal to the basic Sum Assured of Rs. 5,00,000/- per member."

The Court noted:

"The plain meaning of the term 'accident' can be said to be an unexpected and unforeseen event that occurs, with or without human agency."

Citing the Gujarat High Court judgement in Ambalal Lallubhai Panchal v. LIC of India, 1999 SCC OnLine Guj 56, the Court observed that:

"A dog bite is surely something that is outward, violent and visible by which the harm is brought about and the death resulting therefrom would therefore in our opinion be a death resulting from an accident caused by outward, violent and visible means within the meaning of the accident benefit clause of the policy."

The Court also recorded:

"It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner’s late husband was negligent or careless and consequently, he suffered from the dog bite or that the death was not a direct result of the dog bite."

Having established that the cause of death was directly attributable to an accidental dog bite during service, and that the death certificate and medical reports clearly indicated rabies as the cause of death, the Court found the conditions under the Double Accident Benefit clause fulfilled.

Also Read: S.138 NI Act | Lok Adalat Award in Cheque Bounce Case Executable as Civil Decree: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court issued the following directives:

"The petition is allowed, and the respondent no.2 is directed to pay a further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner as per the 'Double Accident Benefit' clause of the Group Insurance Scheme, within four weeks from the date of this judgment, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the initial payment of Rs. 5 lakhs till the date of the payment."

"The respondent no. 2 shall also pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner for the present petition."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Naushad Alam, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Shrivastav, SPC

Case Title: Smt Seema T Telgote v. Union of India & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2648-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 13573/2022

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Shalinder Kaur

[Read/Download order]