ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to make payment of ex-gratia amount and other financial benefits admissible to the petitioner on account of death of her husband. Admittedly, while he was driving war vehicle on 27.10.2006 the vehicle overturned and he died. 3. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of paragraph 5(a) of O.M. No. 45/55/97-P & PW (C), dated 11th September, 1998, issued by the Government of India (Department of Pension and P.W.), when death occurs due to accident in the course of performance of duties Rs.5 lakh becomes payable, which is stated to have been subsequently enhanced from time to time, but the same has been denied to the petitioner. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the only ground for rejecting the petitioner’s claim, as stated in the letter dated 26.2.2011, is that the death of the petitioner’s husband was caused due to cardio pulmonary arrest (heart failure), which is a natural death (normal death) and thus she was not entitled to any ex-gratia, whereas learned counsel refers to the opinion of experts like Modi’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology in which it is stated : “Symptoms or modes of dying as heart failure, asthenia etc. are not considered to be cause of death. The underlying cause of death is defined as the disease which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death”. It is thus submitted by learned counsel that it could not be said that cardio pulmonary arrest/heart failure had taken place before the accident and was the cause of death and accident and not itself a result of the accident in which the vehicle had overturned. 5. It is submitted that the said aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the respondent authorities and only on the basis of conjecture and surmises it has been assumed that firstly cardio pulmonary arrest/heart failure had taken place and that was the cause of the accident without any evidence in support of the said statement; on the contrary the previous medical report dated 8.11.2005 shows that the general condition of the petitioner was good. 6. 6. In the above circumstances, the order dated 26.2.2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the competent authority to reconsider the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of the opinion of Medical Experts on the point and the actual evidence as to the accident and not on the basis of mere conjectures and surmises. Let the final order be passed in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.