RAJU VISHWAKARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a male aged about 35 years. He lost one of his limbs in motor cycle accident. His claim of accident benefit was rejected by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') on the ground that the loss suffered by him was not covered by the policy.

(2.) THE petitioner is evidently a poor person without means or resources. He gave his brief to a lawyer who is so simple that in the writ petition, instead of enclosing the policy document of the petitioner he enclosed his own Insurance Policy taken from some other Insurance Company. This was to show to the court that the other Insurance Company gave to the assured a better deal and the Corporation should also pay compensation to the petitioner as the other company, under some other Insurance Scheme. The writ petition was also drafted very poorly and it contained very little facts of any relevance. In those circumstances the court asked Mr. Naveen Sinha, Advocate to appear in this case as amicus curiae. Mr. Chansi Roy, Advocate who is the counsel for the petitioner was advised to assist Mr. Sinha in bringing on record the relevant facts. I am happy to record that Mr. Naveen Sinha gave valuable assistance to the court in this case and with his help an amendment petition (IA No. 2177 of 2003) was filed on behalf of the petitioner, bringing on record some relevant facts and also the policy document of the petitioner (Annexure 9). On behalf of the Corporation a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed. Though the record of the case cannot yet be said to be comprehensive, sufficient materials have come before the court for a proper adjudication on the issue in dispute.

(3.) THE petitioner made a claim for accident benefit in terms of clause 10 of the Policy but the Corporation rejected it on the ground that loss of one leg was not covered by the terms of the policy. Before this court also the Corporation has taken the stand that loss of one leg was not covered by the definition of disability and hence, the petitioner was not entitled to ciaim accident benefit under clause 10 of the policy.