SAROJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr Tripathi B.G. Balak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are described as under:-

(3.) Admittedly, petitioner's husband Krishna Chandra died on 26.4.2004 while he was on election duty. The Deputy District Election Officer, Pratapgarh through his letter dated 5 th august,2004 recommended his case for grant of insurance claim through his wife ( Petitioner ) to the Insurance Company, namely, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., i. e. Opposite Party No.4. However, Insurance Company refused to executed the insurance benefit to the petitioner on the ground that the Policy does not cover the death caused due to other than accident. In turn the Deputy Election Officer, Pratapgarh informed the petitioner that the Insurance Company had declined to extend the insurance benefits to her.