Dog Bite Case Leading to Revision in Conditions for Double Accident Benefits

One Mr. Amrutlal P. Patel died on the 92nd day of hydrophobia on 9-4-1982 after he was bitten by a dog.

LIC paid the sum assured of Rs. 35,000/- to his widow, Joitibahen Patel. However, it repudiated the double accident benefit on the ground that Mr. Patel “did not manage to die” within 90 days of dog bite as required by the condition of the insurance policy.

CERC and other Consumer Groups, at the instance of CERC, wrote letters to the newspapers and representation to the Finance Minister and persuaded a Member of Parliament to ask a question to the Minister in the House: “Is it true that LIC which had a daily premium income of Rs. 25 crores and premium and interest on investments had rejected the claim of a poor widow from a small village Bholad, Kalol Taluka, Mehsana District since her husband died two days too late”. Before even the question comes up in the Lok Sabha, the Minister, to avoid embarrassment on the floor of the House, instructed LIC to pay another Rs. 35,000/-.

For Joitibahen the problem is over, for CERC the problem begins now, viz., whether such a condition of contract that accidentally injured insured person must die within 90 days is valid and binding on the policyholder.

CERC made further research on the issue. Pennsylvania Supreme Court judgment dealt with the specific issue holding such clause to be illegal, being opposed to public policy, on mainly two grounds:

• If such clause is operative, the relatives of the patient will look at the calendar and the patient on the hospital bed; they will lose sympathy for the patient if he survives the 90 days.
• The patient who dies after a longer period of accident suffers more, spends more money on treatment, but his relative will get double accident benefit.

It was held that such a condition of contract was opposed to public policy and therefore bad in law, void and unenforceable.

Other courts of New Jersey, Alabama and California also took the same view.

CERC also took help of the research study conducted in Northern India and published in Journal of Internal Medicine. This survey showed that out of 94 patients who died due to dog bite, 51 died within 90 days and 43 died after a period of 90 days and within two years’ period.

Research findings further recorded that whether the patient of dog-bite will die or will not die and if he dies when would he die, depends upon two factors —

1. which part of the body the dog has bitten, and
2. whether the patient has taken the treatment.

If the part of the body that the dog has bitten is closer to the brain, there are more chances that he may die or he may die earlier.

CERC relied upon the aforesaid research findings.

As a result the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs, Insurance Division) issued directions to LIC. The limit of 90 days was raised to 120 days with further provision that if death occurs between 120 to 180 days, LIC may at its discretion pay double accident benefit.