Loading...

Maya Tripathi vs Senior Divisional Manager, Life … on 10 July, 2003

Allahabad High Court
Maya Tripathi vs Senior Divisional Manager, Life … on 10 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: III (2004) ACC 105
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, R Tripathi


JUDGMENT

M. Katju, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R\R. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 31.3.1990 (Annexure 1-A to the writ petition) passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and the order dated 22.4.19991 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) rejecting her representation.

3. As alleged in para 1 of the petition, the husband of the petitioner was insured with Life Insurance Corporation for Rs. 50,000/- under TT 88-25 and the policy was made effective from 18.11.1985. It is alleged that the policy was taken when the husband of the petitioner was not suffering from any serious disease. However, he died on 29.10.19087. The petitioner claimed for compensation under the policy but the application was rejected by the order dated 31.3.1990. The petitioner’s representation was also rejected by order dated 22.4.1991. Hence this petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India in which the avernent made in the writ petition have been denied and it is stated that the discharge card issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, dated 20.6.1987 (Annexure C.A. III to the counter affidavit), shows that the husband of the petitioner was suffering from lower abdomen pain for 6 years and had various ailments as mentioned in the discharge certificate.

5. No doubt, the discharge certificate was issued in the year 1987, while the husband of the petitioner took the policy in the year 1985, but we are of the view that the petitioner was suffering from serious ailments prior to taking the policy in the year 1985. This, inference can be drawn from the discharge certificate (Annexure C.A. III) itself. It is common knowledge that when a person has an ailment, he first goes to a local doctor. It is only much later that the person ordinarily goes to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi when the treatment of the local doctor fails. Thus this fact is undisputed that the petitioner had been suffering for six years as stated in the aforesaid discharge certificate (Annexure C.A. III). This fact of ailment since 1981 was concealed by the petitioner’s husband when he applied for the policy in 1985. The petitioner’s husband should have disclosed to the L.I.C. authorities when he applied for policy in 1985 about the nature of his ailments from 1981, which doctor he had consulted, and, what was the diagnosis and treatment of the local doctor. Thus, the circumstantial evidence shows that the husband of the petitioner had been suffering from serious ailments since 1981, but he concealed all these facts when he applied for a policy as is evident from perusal of annexure 1-A to the writ petition. As stated in the discharge certificate, Annexure C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit, the husband of the petitioner had been suffering from continuous pain, colitis, jaundice but he did not disclose these facts. Findings of fact have been recorded by the authority which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information