Honble SHETHNA, J.–An unfortunate young widow has to wait for justice for as many as 12 long years. The respondent is Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.), which is a mighty institution by itself. This legal battle is between David and Goliath.

(2). The petitioner has become widow in her young age of 30 years. On the death of her late husband Jaswant Kumar Chauhan, who died on 10th September, 1982, at the young age of only 36 years, leaving behind him his young widow and two minor children, a son and a daughter, aged only 10 and 4 years respectively. Shri Jaswant Kumar took Life Insurance Policy of Rs. 51,000/-, for which the proposal was made on 22.10.1980, which was accepted by the LIC on 20th January, 1981 and the policy was also issued later on in favour of Shri Jaswant Kumar. He paid first premium of Rs. 1494/- on 29.12.1980, by nominating his wife Smt. Manju Devi-the present petitioner as the sole nominee. Next premium was also paid on 20th January, 1982, unfortunately, Jaswant Kumar died on 10.9.1982, after a brief illness, during which he was examined by the Doctors and also given treatment. Examination Report dated 20th August, 1982 (Annex. 6) of deceased Jaswant Kumar clearly ruled out the possibility of Tuberculosis (T.B.). After the death of Jaswant Kumar, his widow-Smt. Manju Devi- present petitioner submitted a claim of Rs. 51,000/- to the respondent-Corporation on 30th October, 1982. However, the claim was not settled for quite a long time, therefore, a reminder was sent by Regis- tered post on 9.2.1984 (Annex.7). However, respondent-Corporation rejected the claim of the petitioner by a letter dated 15th/18th September, 1984 (Annex.8) and repudiated the liability of the payment of Rs. 51,000/-, on the ground that the statements made by deceased Jaswant Kumar in the questionnaires of the proposal form were false. Hence, according to them, Shri Jaswant Kumar suppressed the fact of his being suffering from T.B., at the time of applying for Life Insurance Policy. This aggravated the wounds of widow as it was very difficult for her to maintain herself with her two minor children aged 10 and 4 years respectively. Due to paucity of the funds,there was no question of she going to Civil Court and file a suit by spending court-fees and other expenses. She had no funds, even to approach this Court, by way of this writ petition, for years together. She could file this petition only in 1987, when the helping hands were extended to her by Shri Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Initially, on 1.9.1987, the Division Bench of this Court ordered to issue notice to the respondents to show-cause as to why this petition should not be admitted. The respondents were duly served and learned counsel Shri Singhvi put up his appearance also. Thereafter, after hearing the learned counsel Shri Singhvi, for the respondents, the Division Bench of this Court admitted this petition on 23.9.1998. However this matter was placed for hearing for the first time before this Court on 18.3.1999 and, at the request of the learned counsel Shri Singhvi, for the respondents, this petition was kept today,i.e., 5.4.1999, for orders, at the top of the cause list.

(3). To-day, Learned counsel Shri Singhvi, for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the un-reported judgment of this Court (Honble Miss Kanta Bhatnagar, J., as she then was) dated 10.10.1983, delivered in S.B. Civil Writ petition No.2600/82. Shri Singhvi has also placed reliance upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in Life Insurance Corporation V. Smt. Kiran Sinha (1). Both these cases were relating to the insurance claim. In Smt. Kiran Sinhas case (Supra), what were the facts and circumstances of the case, were not stated, but it can be seen from the brief order of the Honble Supreme Court that in the circumstances of that case, the Apex Court found that the High Court could not have directed the payment of money cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document