G MUTHUPACKIAM Vs. ZONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent, dated 30.03.2007, relating to LIC policy No.321586863, dated 15.05.2004, issued by the branch-Unit-I, LIC of India, LIC Buildings, Trivandrum Road, Nagercoil, and consequently, to direct the respondents to pass suitable order for payment of claim amount to the petitioner under the above said policy.

(2.) The petitioner's son--P.Thanga Murugan was a doctor. After completing his Higher Secondary Course in March, 1994, with good academic records, joined medical course in Tirunelveli Medical College. He also successfully completed the course in December, 2000. After completing the course, he joined as a Casuality Medical Officer in Dr.Kumarasamy Health Centre in Perumalpuram of Kanyakumari District. Thereafter, he joined as a Resident Medical Officer in Moris Mathyas Hospital, Nagercoil. During 2004, the petitioner's son took a policy for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- under Policy No.321586863, dated 15.05.2004. The petitioner was nominated as nominee for the above said policy. At the time of taking policy, the respondent corporation also made the necessary check up and verification with the panel doctors and on full satisfaction of the particulars given, the LIC policy was given and thereupon, he was paying the premium as per the policy. Subsequently, he got married on 27.11.2005. In the month of January, 2006, he complained of back pain and for which, he got initial treatment at Moris Mathias Hospital, Nagercoil, where he was working, and then at Appollo Hospital, Madurai. In the medical test, it was diagnosed that it is a case of Multiple Myloma, a symptom of cancer. Therefore, it was referred to Regional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum. But, in spite of intensive treatment given to him, he died on 06.09.2006. After the death of her son, the petitioner, being a nominee of the said policy, made a claim to the respondent corporation in October, 2006, for payment of the amount due under the policy. But, the second respondent, by a communication dated 30.03.2007, by repudiating the liability, rejected her claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, the respondent Corporation cannot question the liability under the policy and repudiate the claim of insurance benefits. Mere allegation of suppression of some treatment taken by the petitioner's son long back during the age of 13, has no relevance to the cause of death and the same cannot be accepted now to repudiate the liability. Therefore, when Section 45 of the Act, categorically mentioned that a policy cannot be questioned after a period of two years, the respondent corporation cannot repudiate after two years i.e., in the year of 2007, when the policy was issued on 15.05.2004.