M. MANIMEKALAI Vs. THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned letter issued by the first respondent dated 25.09.2014, in Ref:CHN-L-029-1415-0531 and direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to disburse the claim made by the petitioner based on the Endowment Assurance Policy No. 745871240 within the stipulated period that may be fixed by this Court. The case of the petitioner is that her husband insured his life with the fourth respondent for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in Policy No. 745871240 and the date of commencement of the policy is 14.03.2009. In the said policy, the petitioner has been nominated as 'Nominee' to receive the claim. Meanwhile, he died in a road accident on 25.07.2011 and a case in Cr. No. 308 of 2011 under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. altered into Section 304-A I.P.C. was registered on 25.07.2011. The husband of the petitioner left behind himself, the petitioner-his wife, two minor daughters and his parents, as legal heirs. On the claim made by the petitioner, the third respondent, by his letter dated 20.02.2012, rejected her claim stating that her husband did not maintain good health and suffered diabetes and hence, repudiated the claim and thereby, directed the petitioner to approach the second respondent, if she is aggrieved. The second respondent, by his letter dated 22.08.2012, confirmed the order passed by the third respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached the first respondent, who, in turn, passed the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is, inter alia, contended that the husband of the petitioner was a known diabetic and had been under treatment before taking the policy in question and it has also been proved by the relevant medical records and since the same has been suppressed by the husband of the petitioner at the time of taking the policy, the claim of the petitioner was repudiated and hence, prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. A. Saravanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: