R AMUDHA Vs. MANAGER UTI BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Third Respondent to disburse the Insurance Policy amount pertaining to the Policy No. OG-08 1901-9930-00000080.

(2.) The Petitioner's Husband V. Ravichandran was working as Police Constable and due to electrocution, he died on 22.8.2007. The Petitioner's Husband was having an account in the First Respondent-Bank and he was offered an Insurance Policy by the Second Respondent-Company when he got a debit card from the First Respondent-Bank and after the Petitioner's Husband death, the Petitioner applied to the Respondents to settle the claim and necessary records were also filed along with the said Claim Petition. The same came to be rejected by the Third Respondent by communication dated 21.2.2008. In the said communication, the Petitioner was informed that the death of her Husband occurred on 22.8.2007 and the date of intimation is 6.10.2007 and therefore, the intimation is delayed and hence, the claim is inadmissible and thus, repudiated. In view of the said communication, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 2 & 3 raised preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the Writ Petition stating that the contract between the Petitioner's Husband (life assured) and the Respondents 2 & 3 is a private contract and no Writ is maintainable to enforce such a contract. It is further submitted that the Petition has an effective alternative remedy of approaching the Consumer Forum, if she has got any grievance and that she alleges any deficiency in services offered by the Respondents 2 & 3 and hence, the Writ Petition is not appropriate remedy.