ASHA GOEL Vs. L I C OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very important question of public importance that arises in this Writ Petition is whether extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution could be invoked for issuing a Writ of Mandamus against the Life Insurance Corporation of India directing it to make payment flowing from a Life Insurance Policy. It arises thus :

(2.) The Petitioner, Smt. Asha Goel, is the widow of deceased Naval Kishore Goel who was an employee of the Digvijaya Woollen Mills Ltd., Jamnagar, as a Labour Officer. He submitted a proposal for a life insurance policy at Meerut in Uttar Pradesh on May 29, 1979 which was accepted and he was granted such a policy bearing No. 48264637 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (One lakh). According to the petitioner her husband maintained sound health and was hale and hearty throughout his life. However, he had retrosternal chest pain sometime in Dec. 1979 when he consulted Dr. P. S. Kulkarni, Professor of Medicine, M. P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar. He was advised rest and was relieved of his ailment within few hours. Thereafter he attended office till Dec. 1, 1980. However, on Dec. 2, 1980 he had again slight pain in the chest. He was attended to by the same Dr. P. S. Kulkarni and was admitted in Irwin Group of Hospitals at Jamnagar on Dec. 3, 1980. But he passed away at the age of 46 leaving behind a young widow and a daughter and a son aged about 18 and 16 respectively on Dec. 12, 1980. The cause of death was certified as Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac arrest. The Petitioner being the nominee of the deceased informed .the Divisional Manager, Meerut City (U. P.) of the Respondent 1, viz., Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as "L.I.C." for short) about the death of her husband. She was instructed to fill up certain claim forms and was asked to return the same along with the original insurance policy and the death certificate, etc., to the said office. The petitioner accordingly submitted all the necessary documents along with a covering letter (Exh. 'C') and requested the Divisional Manager of the L.I.C. at Meerut City to consider her claim and make the payment at the earliest. The concerned Divisional Manager (Respondents) by his letter dt. June 8, 1981 repudiated the liability under the policy and refused to make any payment on the grounds that the deceased had withheld correct information regarding his health at the time of effecting the assurance with L.I.C. He further informed the petitioner that in the proposal for assurance dt. May 29, 1979, the deceased had answered the following questions as under :-

(3.) Mr.M.V. Paranjape, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 1, 2 and 3, made two-fold submissions. His first submission is that a writ of mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution cannot be issued in this case because firstly it is a contractual right that the Petitioner is seeking to enforce by a writ of mandamus and secondly there are disputed questions of facts. The second submission of Mr. Paranjape is that in the event this Court coming to a conclusion that writ petition is maintainable, L.I.C. be given an opportunity to lead evidence.