Back
Widow Wins Rs 25 Lakh Insurance Battle: Uttarakhand HC Slams Bank's 'List Excuse'
In a landmark ruling, the
has directed
to pay Rs 25 lakh under its
"Complimentary Police Accidental Death Insurance Cover"
scheme to
Damyanti Negi
, widow of late constable
Narendra Singh Negi
. Justice
Pankaj Purohit
ruled that an administrative oversight in excluding the deceased's name from a coverage list cannot defeat a rightful claim, especially when the bank itself bore the premium. Delivered on
, in
Damyanti Negi v. State of Uttarakhand
(Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2446 of 2022), the decision underscores equality under
Article 14
of the Constitution.
A Constable's Tragic End and a Bank's Denial
Narendra Singh Negi, a constable in the on deputation as a driver with the , died in a road accident on , while on duty. Leaving behind his widow Damyanti and three daughters—Anjali, Arpita, and Aradhya—his death was undisputed, backed by a death certificate and succession records.
Since 2015, Negi's salary had been credited to account No. 76009501185 at the bank's Rajpur Road, Dehradun branch. The bank had even sanctioned a loan, deducting EMIs from it. Enter the bank's scheme, launched : free accidental death cover of Rs 25 lakh for police personnel with salary accounts there, premium fully funded by the bank.
After representations and a legal notice, the bank rejected the claim on and , citing Negi's name missing from a list of 676 employees furnished by police headquarters.
Petitioner's Plea: 'You Knew Him, Cover Him Automatically'
Damyanti's counsel argued the scheme was automatic—no forms or nominations needed—applying to all qualifying police salary account holders. The bank knew Negi's status via salary credits and loan approval. Exclusion was a coordination failure between bank and police, violating . Penalizing the family for others' lapses was ; the rejection letter was vague and .
Bank's Defense: 'No List, No Premium, No Cover'
The bank countered that coverage required inclusion in the , list from DGP's office, for which premiums were paid. No premium for Negi meant no cover. Police bore responsibility for details; the scheme wasn't universal, and it had expired—no retrospective rights.
The State distanced itself, calling it a bank-police matter, with no direct government role.
Court's Sharp Rebuke: No Hiding Behind Your Own Mistakes
Justice Purohit cut through the blame game, holding the denial unsustainable. Undisputed facts: Negi was police personnel, bank account holder since 2015, died in service during scheme validity. The sole rejection ground—list omission—was an
"
arising out of lack of coordination,"
not the widow's fault.
The bank couldn't claim ignorance: years of salary credits and a loan proved knowledge. No premium paid? Irrelevant—the bank funded it, so it can't profit from its omission. Extending benefits to listed employees but not Negi was
"
and
."
Inter-agency finger-pointing wouldn't derail the claim.
No precedents were cited, but the ruling reinforces principles against state instrumentalities exploiting procedural gaps to deny welfare benefits.
Key Observations
"The omission to include the name of the deceased is clearly anarising out of lack of coordination between the respondent-bank and the police department. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for such lapse, which is wholly beyond her control."(Para 12)
"The respondent-bank cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own omission."(Para 13)
"The action of the respondent-bank, in denying the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner while extending the same to other similarly situated employees, isand violative ofof India."(Para 13)
Victory and Ripple Effects
The writ succeeded: the , rejection quashed. The bank must pay Rs 25 lakh plus 5% interest from entitlement date. This sets a precedent—banks and departments can't dodge scheme obligations via lists or lapses. For police families and public servants, it affirms that qualifying automatically triggers rights, premium or not. Future claims may invoke this to bypass bureaucratic hurdles, promoting accountability in welfare schemes.
