RAJENDRA PRASAD PATHAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents 2 and 3 by which the claim of the petitioner to benefit him from the death insurance policy of his mother has been denied. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that his mother, namely, Pavitra Devi Pathak (hereinafter referred to as "the assured") took the death claim policy No. 370725612 (for short "the policy") and signed the proposal and personal statement for insurance on 27-2-1995. However, unfortunately she died within two months on 21-4-1995 in the M. P. Electricity Board Hospital, Jabalpur. Thereafter, on being approached by the petitioner to respondent No. 2, Senior Divisional Manager to provide benefit of the policy, the said respondent vide letter dated 31-3-1999 (Annexure P-1) declined to provide such benefit on the ground that there was material concealment of fact at the time when the proposal to obtain policy was submitted by the assured and on the basis of wrong and false information in regard to her health the policy was obtained. The petitioner against the order of the respondent No. 2, Senior Divisional Manager, filed a departmental appeal before the Regional Manager, LIC, Bhopal (respondent No. 3) vide appeal memo dated 10-5-1999 (Annexure P-3). The appellate authority (respondent No. 3) on 10-5-1999 intimated the petitioner that his appeal shall be decided immediately but till the date of filing of the petition (i.e. 17-8-1999) the appeal was not decided and hence, the present petition has been filed and it has been prayed by the petitioner that because the assured was holding a valid policy and on account of her death, the petitioner is entitled for the claim under the policy.

(2.) All the respondents have filed a joint return and raised the plea of dismissal of the petition because alternative remedy to file the civil suit is available. On merits it has been contended that deliberately incorrect information in regard to health was supplied by the assured stating that she did not remain ill for last five years with a disease which was persisting for more than a week; she was never admitted in any hospital for surgery; she is not suffering from any ailment of lever; abdomen, heart, lungs, kidney and brain etc. and she is also not suffering from diabetes, tuberculosis, high or low blood pressure etc. According to the stand taken in the return, the assured/deceased was a chronic patient of renal disease. It is further stated in the return that the appeal filed by the petitioner had already been dismissed on 4-9-1999 and it has also been intimated vide order contained in Annexure R-/2(4) to the return. Hence, it has been prayed in the return that the petition be dismissed.

(3.) The contention of Shri Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the policy was obtained on 27-2-1995, however, after two months all of a sudden the assured sustained heart attack on 18-4-1995, as a result of which she was admitted in M. P. Electricity Board Hospital, Jabalpur where she breathed her last after three days on 21-4-1995 on account of cardio respiratory arrest. According to learned counsel, the assured was not aware that she was suffering from any chronic renal disease and therefore, in the proposal form she answered the question in negative and therefore, since the assured was fully covered under the policy the petitioner is entitled for the claim under the policy.