SAURABH BASU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHISHIR Kumar, J. The present writ petition has been filed for b quashing the order dated 30. 4. 2004 passed by the Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Allahabad. By order dated 12. 2. 2005 passed by Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Kanpur as communicated by order dated 17. 3. 2005 and order dated 19. 6. 2006 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman (Annexures 3,4 and 6 to the writ petition ). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of the policy amount as C claimed with interest at the rate of 18% till date.

(2.) THE facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner who is a nominee in the Life Insurance Corporation Policy No. 310239615 for Rs. 1 lakh only taken by the mother of the petitioner Smt. (Late) Sharmistha Basu from Life Insurance Corporation on yearly premium of Rs. 5. 543. 30. Smt. Sharmistha, Basu was an Income Tax assessee. THE policy for the sum assured was Rs. 1 lakh was taken by the petitioner's mother on 3. 3. 2000. Whereafter petitioner's mother died on 8. 12. 2001 at All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi. Petitioner being the nominee under the policy filed a claim of the sum assured with the Senior Branch Manager, Direct Agents Branch, Life Insurance Corporation of India on 15. 2. 2003. THE claim has been repudiated by the Divisional Manager on 30. 4. 2004. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. THEreafter, the petitioner filed a detailed representation for correct consideration of the claim on merits the Death Claim Division Zonal Office but the same has also been rejected by its order dated 17. 3. 2005. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Life Insurance Corporation officials, the petitioner preferred a complaint the Insurance Ombudsman. THE same was filed on 9. 4. 2006. THE said authority by impugned award dated 19. 6. 2006 has refused to relief to the petitioner and disposed of the claim without considering the material and relief facts of the case. THE said action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjustified and is also without any reason.

(3.) IN such situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the respondents are liable to be quashed.