SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

M.P.CHINNAPPA
MANJUNATH – Appellant
Versus
N. S. NAGARATHNA – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:Mr. H.S. Chandramouli, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.

JUDGMENT

Mr. M.P. Chinnappa, J. — Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.1996 directing to issue process to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC in P.C.R. No. 52/96 (C.C. No. 613/96) the petitioner filed this petition.

2. Heard.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that there is a bar to take cognizance of the offence alleged against this petitioner under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. To appreciate the argument it i s necessary to succinctly put the facts of the case which are :

That the petitioner is running a private Nursing Home in Tiptur. One Smt. Mahalakshmi approached this petitioner for treatment due to some ailment. It appears that the petitioner has diagnosed it to be cancer and advised her to go to Kidwai Hospital at Bangalore. After several days the said Mahalakshmi died. It is alleged that she had 2 LIC policies wherein the respondent was nominated. After her death when the respondent approached the LIC, they declined to satisfy the amount due under those policies on the ground that the policy holder obtained policies by suppressing certain material particulars specially the disease with which she was suffering.



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top