Advocates:
['BINOD KUMAR JHA', '', 'SANJAY KUMAR THAKUR', 'NIKHIL RANJAN']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 2558 of 2020

Chand Muni Mahato

….. Petitioner

Versus

1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Limited, through its Chairman, Mumbai

2. Associate Vice President (Claims), ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Limited,

Mumbai

3. The Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Limited,

Jamshedpur

4. ICICI Bank Limited RLG, through its Regional Manager, Hyderabad

5. Reserve Bank of India, through its Governor, Mumbai

….. Respondents

-----

CORAM

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Nikhil Ranjan

For the Respondents:

None

-----

05/18.11.2021

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated

18.07.2020 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.2

whereby the said respondent has rejected the death insurance claim of the

petitioner’s husband.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner

is required to be considered under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 which

specifically provides that the policy will not be called in question on the ground

of mis-statement after three years.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the

documents available on record, it appears that the insurance claim in pursuance

of the death of the petitioner’s husband has been rejected by the ICICI

Prudential Life Insurance Co. Limited for the reason that ‘the Life Assured’ had

provided incorrect information about his income and occupation in the proposal

for obtaining the insurance policy and the investigation also revealed

impersonation and submission of fake documents at the time of obtaining the

said policy.

Be that as it may.

Since the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis the stand of the Insurance

Company i.e. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Limited requires laying of

evidence, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

The petitioner is however at liberty to take alternative recourse as

provided under law, if so advised.

Satish/-

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)