KEMPAJAMMA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner primarily questions the correctness or otherwise of the communication of the respondents dated 14.3.1996 and the other ancillary question posed for an answer is the legality or otherwise of the condition No. 1 of the Personal Accident Policy of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short 'Insurance Company') as unreasonable, arbitrary and opposed to constitutional provisions.

(2.) FACTS and legal issues raised lie in a very narrow compass. They are:

(3.) MR . S.P. Shankar, learned Counsel, an exponent of the insurance laws of the respondent -Insurance Company submits that in view of condition No. 1 in the Insurance Policy, petitioner may not get any relief and, therefore, suggests a liberal interpretation to the benevolent provisions by This Court not only to the person insured and his dependents but also to the public at large.