By the Court—This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of Rs.50,000/-P.T. 124-15 with interest under the Life Insurance Policy No. 310786680.

2. The facts leading to the writ petition put briefly are these:

The petitioner’s husband Ashok Babu Sahu had purchased Life Insurance Policy No. 310786680 on 31.10.1998 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner’s husband who was admitted in Anand Hospital, Allahabad on 10.1.2000 expired on 14.1.2000 at 8 a.m. due to brain heamorrhage. The petitioner/nominee filed assurance claim before the respondents which was repudiated on the score that the answers given to the question No. 11 (a) (b), (d) and (i) of proposal for insurance were incorrect as the assured suffered from various liver disorders such as cirrhosis, recurrent jaundice episode and hepatic encephalopathy since June 1997 and was operated for piles in July, 1998. The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order of repudiation of claim dated 30.8.2000 before this Court which was registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43751 of 2001, Smt. Meena Sahu alias Meenu Sahu v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others. This Court vide order dated 21.12.2001 finally disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondents to decide the pending representation within a time bound period. In compliance of the order of this Court the petitioner filed a representation dated 25.1.2002. The representation of the petitioner in relation to Life Insurance Policy No. 310786680 was rejected vide order dated 27.3.2002 on the ground that on the date of proposal the life assured was a patient of jaundice and he suppressed this material fact while filling in the proposal form. The assured had taken another Life Insurance Policy of Rs. 50,000/- under table and term 74-15 on 25.9.1997 being policy No. 310474179. The claim of the petitioner in relation to the said Life Insurance Policy was accepted. The contention of the petitioner is that the claim has been repudiated on flimsy grounds without any enquiry. According to the petitioner her claim for the amount assured under Life Insurance Policy of her husband has been illegally repudiated by the respondents, therefore, she is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

3. On behalf of the respondents Sri Sant Lal, Deputy Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office 19-A, Tagore Town, Allahabad, has filed a supplementary counter affidavit. The respondents have admitted that the life insurance policy in question was issued by the corporation in favour of the assured deceased under the proposal form submitted on 31.10.1998 (Annexure-3 to the supplementary counter affidavit). The respondents have admitted that the Medical Examiner, L.I.C. of India had submitted confidential report on 31.10.1998 (Annexure-4 to the SCA). According to the respondents the life insurance policy was issued in favour of the assured by the corporation on 3.11.1998 (Annexure-5 to the SCA).

4. The petitioner has filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. According to the petitioner her husband died due to brain haemorrhage as is evident from the death certificate. She has denied that material facts about illness were concealed by her husband. The petitioner in her supplementary rejoinder affidavit has emphatically stated that her husband was not suffering from any disease at the time of purchasing the policy in question. According to her the respondents have not produced any evidence in support of their allegation that the assured was suffering from jaundice prior to and on the date of filling of the proposal form.

5. We have heard Sri R.S. Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondents and have scrutinized the re