Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—The fact remains that the petitioner’s deceased husband made a policy during his life time under the money back scheme of Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called as ‘L.I.C.’) in its local office. Number of the policy is 311465500 dated 31st January, 2002. The policy was lapsed due to non-payment of premium on 28th June, 2002 and 28th December, 2002. The policy was revived on full payment of premium on 15th February, 2003. However, the insured expired on the following day i.e. 16th February, 2003 due to heart attack. On 27th May, 2004 Senior Divisional Manager of the L.I.C., Allahabad had rejected the claim of his wife on account of her husband’s death. On 18th January, 2005 Zonal Manager of the L.I.C. from its office at Kanpur had also rejected such claim. On 2nd February, 2005 wife of the insured was formally informed by the Divisional Office, Allahabad about the order of the Zonal Manager, Kanpur, from which an appeal was preferred before the Insurance Ombudsman. Ultimately the Insurance Ombudsman by his award dated 30th June, 2005 upheld the repudiation action taken by the insurer, in repudiating the claim under the Policy No. 311465500. Challenging the order/award dated 30th June, 2005 passed by the Ombudsman this writ petition has been filed by the wife of the deceased/insured.

2. Before entering into the dispute, we have to consider the scope and ambit of the writ jurisdiction as it has been held in 2001 (2) SCC 160 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Asha Goel (Smt.) and another). Supreme Court held that the determination of the question under the writ jurisdiction will depend on consideration of several factors, like, whether a writ petitioner is merely attempting to enforce his/her contractual rights or the case raises important questions of law and constitutional issues; the nature of the dispute raised; the nature of inquiry necessary for determination of the dispute etc. The matter is to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. While the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be denied altogether, Court must bear in mind the self-imposed restriction consistently followed by High Courts all these years after the constitutional power came into existence in not entertaining writ petitions filed for enforcement of purely contractual rights and obligations which involve disputed questions of facts.

3. According to us, the Insurance Act, 1938 with the latest amendment is a beneficial piece of legislation. Therefore, if a benefit which the petitioner is legally entitled has been refused, Court cannot enter upon the arena to render equitable justice. The Court of equity cannot shut out the eyes taking plea that there is mere or bare disputed question of fact. The disputed question of fact ipso facto cannot be ground for rejection unless or until it is proved beyond the doubt before Court of equity under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that the dispute is such that cannot be resolved by the writ jurisdiction at all. If we place factum of case within the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Asha Goel (supra), we shall have no doubt in our mind that the writ jurisdiction can be invoked in the circumstances.

4. In this case it has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that before the date of death the deceased attended his office to work. He was not under treatment for any disease to be treated by any Doctor. However, as per the certificate given by the particular hospital, the deceased was suffering from jaundice. In the common parlance different kind of jaundice and its several stages of suffering are available to which an expert can give any opinion. But it gradually develops and gradually diminishes. A person having jaundice normally can not attend his office to do the work just before one day of his death. Death occurred by heart attack. No spe