News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 5
January 29, 2026 : The SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. has secured relief from the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which set aside a district forum order directing the insurer to pay ₹2 lakh under a personal accident policy. The State Commission ruled that the claim was not payable because the insured had died while attempting an illegal act.
The appeal, registered as SC/22/FA/106/2025, arose from an order passed by the District Consumer Commission in Balod district on November 26, 2024. That order had partly allowed a complaint filed by Smt. Kumari Bai against the insurer and the State Bank of India, directing payment under a personal accident cover linked to a savings bank account. The State Commission delivered its decision on January 29, 2026, allowing the insurer’s appeal and dismissing the consumer complaint.
According to the case record, the complainant’s son, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, had opened a savings account with the State Bank of India. A sum of ₹100 was debited from his account on February 22, 2019, towards a personal accident insurance scheme, following which a policy was issued by SBI General Insurance. The cover was valid from February 22, 2019 to February 21, 2020, with a sum insured of ₹2 lakh in case of accidental death. Kumari Bai was named as the nominee.
On June 7, 2019, during the policy period, Sinha died after allegedly climbing an electricity pole to connect a service wire to a house in his village. As per the documents on record, he was electrocuted and fell from the pole, sustaining fatal injuries. A post-mortem was conducted the same day at the government hospital in Daundi Lohara, and a criminal case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered in connection with the incident.
Following the death, the nominee informed the bank and the insurer. A claim was registered and documents were submitted. However, the insurance company did not settle the claim. The complainant approached the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service.
Before the District Commission, the insurer argued that the deceased was neither an authorized employee of the electricity department nor legally permitted to climb and interfere with electricity infrastructure. It relied on the exclusion clause in the policy, which barred claims arising from the insured’s actual or attempted commission of an illegal act or violation of law.
The District Commission had initially granted partial relief to the complainant. Challenging that order, SBI General Insurance contended before the State Commission that the death occurred while the insured was engaging in an unlawful activity, which clearly attracted the policy exclusion.
After examining the FIR, post-mortem report, claim documents and policy terms, the State Commission observed that climbing an electricity pole and attempting to connect a service wire without authorization constituted a criminal act. It noted that electricity poles are the property of the state power distribution company and that only authorized personnel are permitted to handle such connections.
The Commission held that since the death occurred during the commission of an illegal act, the exclusion clause squarely applied. As a result, the insurer could not be held liable to pay the sum insured. The order of the District Commission was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
The ruling underscores the importance of policy exclusions in personal accident insurance contracts, particularly where the insured’s conduct at the time of the incident is found to be unlawful.
