IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of utmost good faith in insurance requires full disclosure of all material facts, and non-disclosure can lead to claim rejection.

JUDGMENT :

Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.

In Re: Order on the Application for condonation of delay:

Registry has reported that the present Special Appeal is filed beyond time by 14 days. Sufficient reason is disclosed for the delay, so occasioned.

2. A feeble attempt has been made by the learned Counsel for the respondents to oppose the said Appeal on the ground of delay.

3. This application for condonation of delay is duly supported by an affidavit.

4. Cause of delay in filing of the Appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Accordingly, the Application for the condonation of delay in filing of appeal is allowed. Delay is condoned. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed within time.

In Re: On the Special Appeal

1. We have heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Udai Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for respondents-Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and perused the materials available on record.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present Special Appeal at the admission stage itself.

3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.4.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 3149 of 2016 whereby the Writ petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed. The Writ Court found no good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.9.2015, passed by the Insurance Ombudsman (respondent No. 4), whereby the complaint filed by the appellant against rejection of her claim against the insurance policies Nos. 256487214 and 256487400 were rejected vide order dated 14.3.2014, passed by the authorities of the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ''LIC'').

4. At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the present Special Appeal on the ground that adjudication made by the Insurance Ombudsman would be akin of an award, and therefore, a special appeal would not lie against such order.

5. On the issue of the maintainability of the present Special Appeal, it has thus to be seen as to whether the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge arising out of such order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman could be assailed in special appeal. Before proceeding further it is imperative to briefly elucidate the law relating to the Special Appeal.

6. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1952') provides for the remedy of filing Special Appeal. For a ready reference the same is reproduced hereinafter :

''5. Special appeal : An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction 2[or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge.''

7. A perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952 would indicate that the first part of the Rule provides for Special Appeal to be maintainable from a judgment passed by a Single Judge of this Court. The subsequent part of the Rule then provides the circumstances and exigencies in wh