IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (219)

CWP-13584-2022 Reserved on 14.10.2025 Pronounced on:- 29.10.2025 PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONERS VERSUS AJMER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. K.S.Mamrat, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. Petitioners/insurance company has approached this Court by way of instant petition inter-alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned award dated 16.09.2021, Annexure P-1, passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Rupnagar (for short “the Lok Adalat”) as also for quashing warrants of attachment issued on 31.05.2022, Annexure P-2, by the Lok Adalat.

2. Respondent No.1 filed an application, Annexure P-3, under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) claiming that her husband, Parshotam Singh, had purchased a Met Smart Policy in the month of December, 2016 with a life coverage of Rs.10,50,000/- and paid a premium of Rs.1,50,000/-. In July, 2017, Parshotam Singh had pain in the abdomen and had bouts of vomiting. He was admitted to PGIMER, Chandigarh, but unfortunately expired on 10.07.2017. When his widow- respondent No.1 raised the claim under the policy, petitioners paid a marginal amount of Rs.1,20,206.31/- in full and final settlement. Application was contested by the petitioners by filing a written version, Annexure P-4, wherein they took a stand that the deceased had concealed material facts regarding his state of health and claim was repudiated vide letter dated 05.03.2018, Annexure P-8, on the ground of non-disclosure of prior medical condition in the proposal form. It was submitted that the fund value under the policy was electronically transferred to the bank account of respondent No.1, who filed a rejoinder reasserting the claim raised in the application. A Memorandum of Settlement was prepared by the Lok Adalat and when the parties could not reach at a settlement, it adjudicated the claim on merits vide the impugned award and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased, besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

3. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the death of the insured occurred within eight months of the purchase of the policy and the claim raised by respondent No.1 was investigated. It was found that the deceased was suffering from hypertension and diabetes mellitus for the last ten years prior to the purchase of the policy. It has been argued that the insured deliberately concealed these ailments in order to defraud the insurance company and Lok Adalat has erred in accepting the claim vide the impugned order. Reliance has been placed by her upon (i) Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. and others Versus Dalbir Kaur, (2021) 13 SCC 553;

(ii) Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Sunita and another , (2022)

1 SCC 68;

(iii) Subhash Kumar Versus Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz e Life Insurance Company Limited and others, (2025) 1 PLR 344; and (iv) Manmohan Nanda Versus United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2022) 4 SCC 582.

4. While supporting the award passed by the Lok Adalat, counsel for the respondent No.1 has argued that the cause of death of deceased is refractory shock, which has no connection with the alleged suppressed ailments. It is his submission that the insurance company has failed to lead any tangible evidence to establish that there was any concealment and in any case, the aforesaid diseases are not life threatening. Reference has been made by him upon (i) Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar and others Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India, (2021) 13 SCC 561;

(ii) P. Vankat Naidu Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and an