The Division Bench did number accept the objection raised by the Corporation against maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the case involves enforcement of companytractual rights for adjudication of which a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is number the proper forum.
Since the respondent number1 failed to get any relief from the authorities of the Corporation despite best efforts she filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation and its officers to pay the sum assured and other accruing benefits with interest.
The Corporation carried the matter in a writ appeal wherein the Division Bench of the High Court companysidered the companytention raised on behalf of the Corporation that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned single Judge should number have granted relief to the writ petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
According to the Divisional Manager, the answers given by the deceased as aforementioned were false.
The respondent No.1 being numberinee of the deceased under the policy informed the Divisional Manager, Meerut City, about the death of her husband, submitted the claim along with other papers as instructed by the Divisional Manager and requested for companysideration of her claim and for making payment.
One lakh was issued by the Corporation in his favour.
The factual backdrop of the case relevant for the purpose of the present proceeding may be stated thus Late Naval Kishore Goel, husband of Smt.
The companytention on behalf of the Corporation was that the writ petition should be dismissed as number maintainable leaving it to the writ petitioner, respondent number1 herein, to file a civil suit for enforcement of her claim.
The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows In the result, the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Respondent No.3 are hereby directed to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ One Lakh arising out of Life Insurance Policy of her husband deceased Naval Kishore Goel, bearing No.48264637, together with all the benefits accruing therefrom with interest at the rate of 15 from the date of the death of the petitioners husband within a month.
On such findings, the learned Single Judge rejected the case of the Corporation on merit.
Alternatively the companytention was raised that in case the High Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition then opportunity should be given to the Corporation to lead evidence in support of its plea of repudiation of the claim.
The Divisional Manager drew the attention of the claimant that at the time of submitting the proposal for insurance on May 29, 1979, the deceased had stated his usual state of health as good that he had number companysulted a medical practitioner within the last five years for any ailment requiring treatment for more than a week and had answered the question if remained absent from place of your work on ground of health during the last five years in the negative.
The Divisional Manager by his letter dated 8th June, 1981 repudiated any liability under the policy and refused to make any payment on the ground that the deceased had withheld companyrect information regarding his health at the time of effecting the insurance with the Corporation.
The cause of death was certified as acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac arrest.
He submitted a proposal for a life insurance policy at Meerut in the State of U.P. on 29th May, 1979 which was accepted and the policy bearing No.48264637 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 Rs.
The LIC is also directed to pay companyt of Rs.2,000/ to the petitioner.
The writ petition was opposed by the Corporation on the ground of maintainability as numbered earlier.
The insured passed away on 12th December, 1980 at the age of 46 leaving behind his wife, a daughter and a son.
Asha Goel respondent No.1, was an employee of M s Digvijay Woollen Mills Limited at Jamnagar as a Labour Officer.
LITTTTTTJ P.MOHAPATRA, J. These appeals, filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India hereinafter referred to as the Corporation , are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ appeal number843/85 allowing the appeal on the ground that the appellant should have had an opportunity of leading evidence relevant to their companytention that the insurance policy was obtained by misrepresentation, and therefore, avoidable at the instance of the Corporation, and remitting the writ petition to the writ companyrt for fresh decision, after allowing the Corporation to lead evidence.
