[2026:RJ-JD:11629]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19628/2024

1. HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 11th Floor, Lodha Excellus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai (Maharashtra) - 400011.

2. HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Landmark Tower, PN 516-A, Mahavir Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) -

302001.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Smt. Leela Devi W/o Late Mr. Shravan Kumar, Aged About

44 Years, Resident At - 22, Nainarayan Vyas Colony, Pali (Raj.).

2. DCB Bank Ltd., Branch Office At Opposite Town Hall, Pali (Raj.) - 306401.

3. DCB Bank Ltd., Retail Assets Operation Unit S - 5, 2nd Floor, Geejgarh Tower, Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.) - 302006. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav on behalf of Respondent No.1 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

10/03/2026

1. The petitioner, by way of filing the present writ petition, has challenged the award dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Pali in Case No.54/2023 titled as “Smt. Leela Devi vs.

HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.”.

2. The respondent – Smt. Leela Devi’s husband, namely Shrawan Kumar, had obtained an insurance policy in the nature of HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Plus Insurance Plan under Policy No. PP000246, covering the period from 06.01.2020 to 05.01.2025, to insure the mortgage loan obtained from DCB Bank. 3. During the currency of the policy, the respondent’s husband died due to a head injury sustained as a result of a fall. The claim submitted by the respondent before the petitioner–Insurance Company, however, was rejected on the ground that the respondent’s husband was suffering from pre-existing ailments and had failed to disclose the fact that he was suffering from diabetes, hypertension, generalized epilepsy, heart disease, etc., at the time of submitting the policy proposal.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently submitted that despite the availability of documents on record indicating that the respondent’s husband had concealed the factum of pre-existing ailments in order to obtain the insurance policy, the Permanent Lok Adalat, vide award dated 27.08.2024, directed the petitioner–Insurance Company to disburse the outstanding loan amount of Rs.54,60,872.39/- and an amount of Rs.11,30,247.60/- to the respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is devoid of cogent reasoning and reflects a mechanical and arbitrary approach. It is contended that the impugned award has been passed without exercising due diligence or thoughtful consideration of the material available on record.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has passed a well- reasoned award in favour of the respondent which does not call for any interference by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that apart from Policy No. PP000246, another Policy No. PP000245 was also issued in favour of the respondent’s husband by the petitioner–Insurance Company. The petitioner–Insurance Company, on the one hand, rejected the respondent’s claim under Policy No. PP000246, but on the other hand, honoured the claim under Policy No. PP000245. It is thus contended that the claim under Policy No. PP000246 has been rejected without proper application of mind.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners, in the present writ petition, have raised the contention that the policyholder, i.e. the respondent’s husband, died due to pre- existing ailments; however, the documents placed on record to substantiate this contention were not proved before the Permanent Lok Adalat in conformity with Sections 115, 61 and 104 of the Indian Evidence Act, and therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration at this stage.

7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, as a matter of fact, the documents on which the petitioner– Insurance Company is pl