NILKANTA MONDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's case is that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') failed neglected and/or refused to pay the claim arising out of the risk covered by the Corporation concerning life of the petitioner's deceased wife Shrimati Chhaya Mondal. The writ petitioner as such has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Corporation to pay the sum assured amounting to Rs. 75,000/- together with compound interest. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: - Shrimati Chhaya Mondal took out a Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 420094448 with effect from 2nd October, 1987 for a sum of Rs. 37,500/-. She took out another policy bearing No. 420094449 with effect from 28th October, 1987 for an identical sum of Rs. 37,500/-. The writ petitioner was the nominee. The life assured expired on 30th November, 1988. A claim was naturally made by the writ petitioner which the Corporation failed neglected and/or refused to pay on the sole ground that, as would appear from the Corporation's letter dated 1st September, 1994 :

(2.) The writ petitioner had filed a suit in the 1 st Court of Munsif at Ranaghat which was registered as Title Suit No. 303 of 1994. The aforesaid suit was however allowed to be withdrawn by the writ petitioner with liberty to approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction for appropriate relief as would appear from the order dated 15th June, 1995 a copy whereof is Annexure -X to the affidavit-in-reply affirmed by the writ petitioner on 8th April, 1996.

(3.) The Corporation in its affidavit-in-opposition in Paragraph-4 has alleged that according to the information, furnished in the proposal form filed by the assured, she had both business and service for her occupation. Since Form No. 'E' which is a sort of declaration from the employer has not been filed by the petitioner the claim has not been processed. In Paragraph-8 of the opposition the deponent on behalf of the Corporation has denied "that the petitioner's wife was not a Government Employee as wrongly claimed or at all".