NAFR

C A V Order

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 29/09/2018 passed in case No.83/2014 by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (CG) [for short ‘PLA’].

2. By the impugned award, learned PLA ordered to pay Rs.4,16,226/- with interest @ 8% from 13/12/2013 till recovery in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. The writ petition was filed against original respondent namely Ahmed Hussain who was the applicant before the PLA. During pendency of this writ petition, he passed away and his legal representative is substituted on record.

An application under Section 22 (1) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act of 1987’) was filed by the original respondent – Ahmed Hussain against the petitioners before the learned PLA.

3. Facts which emerges from the record are that Late Smt. Ayesha Hussain was the wife of the deceased-original respondent Ahmed Hussain. An insurance policy bearing No.0187786346 was issued in favour of Lt. Ayesha Hussain by the petitioners. It is further pleaded that the wife of original respondent was allured by the agent of the petitioners that she would be paid Rs.55 lakhs after completion of tenure of the policy or after her death. Rs.50,000/- as premium was paid by Smt. Ayesha Hussain and original respondent was the nominee in the said policy. Smt. Ayesha Hussain died on 26/03/2012 in Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur. After her death, in order to receive the insurance amount, deceased respondent contacted the petitioners and submitted different documents in the office. However, the same was not paid to him, for which he had to visit Jagdalpur on many occasions as he was residing at Bhawanipatnam, Orissa after the death of his wife. Though the deceased respondent was entitled to Rs.5 lakhs, only Rs.83,774/- was deposited in his bank account and thus claimed Rs.5 lakhs insurance amount and Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards other expenses.

4. The application was resisted by the petitioners herein inter alia denying averments of the application. It has been specifically pleaded that Smt. Ayesha Hussain died of Carcinoma Ovary (a type of Cancer). Before purchase of the insurance policy, in paragraph 14 of the proposal form, this fact was suppressed by her. It has been further pleaded that on investigation, it is revealed that she was suffering from Cancer and by suppressing about the serious and life threatening disease, the policy was purchased. Thus, respondent No.1 was not entitled for any relief as claimed.

5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned PLA framed 3 issues which are quoted herein below -

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to receive the insurance money along with interest from the non-applicant / insurance company after the death of his wife Smt. Ayesha Hussain?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to receive Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as other expenses from the non-applicant/insurance company?

3. Assistance and litigation expenses?

6. Respective parties led their evidence and proved their pleadings. By the impugned award, issue no.1 was held to be proved. Issue No.2 was held to be not proved and learned PLA ordered that the amount which is mentioned in the 1st paragraph of the order.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the deceased Smt. Ayesha Hussain in whose name the insurance policy was issued was suffering from Carcinoma Ovary (a type of Cancer) before the policy was issued in her name. He submits that in the proposal form, particularly in column 14, wherein it has been mentioned as to whether the person is suffering from Cancer or any other disease, she made a deliberate assertion that she is not suffering from any disease. Reading from the proposal form, he submits that all the averments made in the proposal form is believed to be true by the proposer i.e.