JUDGMENT : S.K. Kulshrestha , J.: - Bythese appeals, order dated 14-11-2006 passed by the District Forum, Morena in C.C. No. 140/2006 and order dated 14-11-2006passed by the said Forum in C.C. No. 141/2006 have been assailed as illegal andimproper. Since the facts of both the cases are the same except that in thefirst case, the insurance policy was for Rs . 5 lakhs and in the second case, it was for Rs . 2.5 lakhs with accidentalbenefits. 2.Deceased Kalicharan had obtained two policies one on5-7-2004 bearing No. 202189812 for Rs . 5 lakhs and the other on 23-11-2004 bearing No. 202193359 for Rs . 2.5 lakhs with accidentcover. Kalicharan died on 10-12-2004 presumably of consumption of liquorbut since in the proposal form in column 11 he had not mentioned that he usedto consume liquor, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim for the insuranceamount. 3.It is not disputed that Kalicharan consumed liquorbut in the post-mortem, the doctor was unable to give any opinion with theresult the viscera was preserved and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory forchemical analysis. The report of the chemical examiner is certified that in A& B, viscera of Kalicharan , ethyl alcohol wasfound in the quantity of 226 mg/100 gm. In the further report dated 1-4-2005,it has been stated that the bottle articles H-l, H-2 and H-3 contained liquidwhich had 42% & 41.8% alcohol which was unfit for human use. 4.It was on account of consumption of this alcohol unfit for human consumptionthat presumably death of Kalicharan occurred. 5.The respondent disputed the claim of the appellant and on claim beingrepudiated the matter was brought to the District Forum. The District Forumdismissed both the complaints and therefore the present appeals. 6.In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt . Kanti Devi , I (2002) CPJ 85, this Commission has taken note of fact that Ethyl Alcohol as per Parikh'sText Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 30-50 mg % concentration inblood causes selective impairment of complex skills. 50-100mg % alcoholic smell, dilated pupils, euphoria, loss of restrain. 100-150 mg % test errors. 150-200 mg % clouding ofintellect; in coordination of thought, speech, and action; staggers on suddenturning. 200-300 mg % reeling gait with tendency to lurch andfall, vomiting, amnesia. Above 300 mg % stupor, convulsions, coma,hypothermia. Chronic poisoning leads to physical; moral, and mentaldeterioration. 50-100mg % alcoholic smell, dilated pupils, euphoria, loss of restrain. 100-150 mg % test errors. 150-200 mg % clouding ofintellect; in coordination of thought, speech, and action; staggers on suddenturning. 200-300 mg % reeling gait with tendency to lurch andfall, vomiting, amnesia. Above 300 mg % stupor, convulsions, coma,hypothermia. Chronic poisoning leads to physical; moral, and mentaldeterioration. Furtherin Paragraph 8, it has been observed as follows : - Ifthe medico legal aspect of Ethyl Alcohol is considered, that would make thething clear that the deceased even if had consumed intoxicating liquor, but,that was not in the quantity of fatal level. Therefore, repudiation of theclaim merely on surmises of the possibility of the death caused by EthylAlcohol, in our opinion, was not justified, as the possibility of a homicidemurder from the circumstances can also not be ruled out for which crime wasregistered under Section 302 of the IPC. The circumstances which emerge in thecase give rise to doubt whether it was the deceased himself who consumed liquoror he was murdered by miscreants after giving him intoxicating liquor.Therefore, this benefit of doubt must go in favour ofthe deceased. 7.In our case, however, there is a mark distinction between the facts of the saidcase and the facts of the cases in hand. In the present case, undubitably , death has occurred on account of consumptionof liquor unfit for human consumption. It is nobody's case that the deceasedknew that the liquor contained any poison. Under these circumstances, the deathis accidental. 8.The Insurance Company repudiated the claim mainly on the ground that incondition No. 11 of the proposal form insured was required to make adeclaration that he was consuming liquor but in the column he has specificallymentioned "NO". Learned Counsel for Insurance Company submits thathaving stated that he was not consuming liquor, if he consumed liquor and diedthe Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim. It is not knownthat at time of making the proposal, he had any earlier occasion to consume anyliquor, thus there is doubt about the fact that he was drinking liquor prior tohis making proposal and in the proposal he had deliberately suppressed thisfact. The Insurance Company also relied upon the statements recorded by thepolice containing information that he had died of liquor. The appellant filedaffidavits of the persons from the neighbourhood toshow that Kalicharan never used to drink. The Insurance Company also relied upon the statements recorded by thepolice containing information that he had died of liquor. The appellant filedaffidavits of the persons from the neighbourhood toshow that Kalicharan never used to drink. In thisconnection, affidavit of Moolchand states that heknew Kalicharan since 15 years past and he never sawhim drinking. He has refuted his statement to the police stating that he hadnot made any such statement. This aspect has also been referred to by R.K. Jainin his affidavit. He has stated that Kalicharan neverused to drink liquor. He has also resiled from thestatement made to the police. Even if these two affidavits are omitted fromconsideration, on the theory of res ipsa loquitor , it is clear thatthough Kalicharan had taken liquor, it cannot be saidthat in the past he was drinking liquor and he deliberately suppressed thisfact in the proposal form. Benefit of this doubtful state should accrue toappellant rather than the Insurance Company. 9.Although this fact has not been raised, we have incidentally examined thecondition of the policy. In condition No. 10.2, it is stated that thecorporation shall not be liable to pay the additional sum referred in clauses(a) and (b) above if the disability or death of the life assured is underinfluence of intoxicating liquor. We leave it to the Insurance Company to workout as to what amount appellant would be entitled to in case; the repudiationby the Insurance Company is quashed. 10.In the result, we are of the view that death of Kalicharan being on account of poisonous liquor, the repudiation of the Insurance Companyis not tenable and the Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount under thepolicy subject to the limitations contained therein. These appeals aretherefore allowed with no order as to costs. 11.This order be placed in Appeal No. 2406/2006 and acopy be placed in Appeal No. 2407/2006.