Point of Law : There is no good ground to interfere in the orders impugned.

JUDGMENT :

(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Udai Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by one Smt. Parul Agarwal, wife of late Vishal Agarwal challenging the impugned order dated 10.09.2015 (annexed as ‘Annexure No.6’ to the writ petition) whereby the Insurance Ombudsman, (Western U.P. and Uttarakhand), has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against rejection of her claim by the Senior Divisional Managar of the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) concerning the insurance policy Nos.256487214 and 256487400 vide order dated 14.03.2014 which has also been challenged. Futher prayer is to issue a direction to the respondent no.1 to pay to the petitioner the amount payable under policy Nos.256487214 and 256487400.

Facts of the Case

3. The facts culled out from the pleadings contained in the writ petition are that Vishal Agarwal, i.e. husband of the petitioner, was holder of three insurance policies bearing nos.224492798, 256487214 and 256487400 issued by the Corporation and he died on 11.11.2013, whereafter, the petitioner, as his widow, preferred a claim against the aforesaid three policies. It is pleaded that the claim of the petitioner in respect of policy Nos.256487214 and 256487400 was rejected by the Corporation vide impugned order dated 14.03.2014 on the ground that the husband of the petitioner did not disclose the previous policy No.224492798 in the proposal form. After rejection of her claim concerning the aforesaid two insurance policies, the petitioner filed a review application before the Zonal Manager of the respondent-Corporation and, thereafter, filed an application before the respondent no.4 i.e Insurance Ombudsman on 01.11.2014, however, the application/ complaint of the petitioner was rejected by the impunged order dated 10.09.2015.

4. The writ petition is founded on the premise that the impugned order dated 14.03.2014 was passed with a pre-determined mind and smells of deep-rooted prejudice against the petitioner; that the Corporation, accepting the personal statement of the deceased to be correct, issued the policies without any protest and that there is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that the insured ever made any concealment or misrepresentation at the time of commencement of insurance policy and, therefore, the impunged orders of the Corporation as well as the Insurance Ombudsman are unsustainable.

5. A counter affidavit dated 18.04.2016 has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company stating that claim under policy nos.256487214 and 256487400 was repudiated on account of non-disclosure of previous policy No.224492798. It is further pleaded in the counter affidavit that as the Corporation works on the basis of utmost good faith by relying on the statement of insured in the proposal form, repudiation of claim was done as per rules on account of non-disclosure of previous policy in the proposal form.

6. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating her stand taken in the writ petition.

7. A Supplementary affidavit dated 17.04.2022 has also been filed by the petitioner substantially relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8386 of 2015 (Manmohan Nanda v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.) reported in (2022) 4 SCC 582 and referring to the provisions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations-2002 (in short ‘the Regulations-2002’), it has been pleaded that the proposal form was rightly filled up by the insured with full satisfaction of the respondent-Corporation.

8. As against the supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation taking the same stand