D. P. Mohapatra, J. - (1.) These appeals, filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ appeal No. 843/85 allowing the appeal on the ground that the appellant should have had an opportunity of leading evidence relevant to their contention that the insurance policy was obtained by misrepresentation, and therefore, avoidable at the instance of the Corporation, and remitting the writ petition to the writ Court for fresh decision, after allowing the Corporation to lead evidence. The Division Bench did not accept the objection raised by the Corporation against maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the case involves enforcement of contractual rights for adjudication of which a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the proper forum. The contention on behalf of the Corporation was that the writ petition should be dismissed as not maintainable leaving it to the writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 herein to file a civil suit for enforcement of her claim.
(2.) The factual backdrop of the case relevant for the purpose of the present proceeding may be stated thus : Late Naval Kishore Goel, husband of Smt. Asha Goel-respondent No. 1, was an employee of M/s. Digvijay Woollen Mills Limited at Jamnagar as a Labour Officer. He submitted a proposal for a life insurance policy at Meerut in the State of U. P. on 29th May, 1979 which was accepted and the policy bearing No. 48264637 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. One lakh) was issued by the Corporation in his favour. The insured passed away on 12th December, 1980 at the age of 46 leaving behind his wife, a daughter and a son. The cause of death was certified as acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac arrest. The respondent No. 1 being nominee of the deceased under the policy informed the Divisional Manager, Meerut City, about the death of her husband, submitted the claim along with other papers as instructed by the Divisional Manager and requested for consideration of her claim and for making payment. The Divisional Manager by his letter dated 8th June, 1981 repudiated any liability under the policy and refused to make any payment on the ground that the deceased had withheld correct information regarding his health at the time of effecting the insurance with the Corporation. The Divisional Manager drew the attention of the claimant that at the time of submitting the proposal for insurance on May 29, 1979, the deceased had stated his usual state of health as good; that he had not consulted a medical practitioner within the last five years for any ailment requiring treatment for more than a week; and had answered the question if remained absent from place of your work on ground of health during the last five years in the negative. According to the Divisional Manager, the answers given by the deceased as aforementioned were false. Since the respondent No. 1 failed to get any relief from the authorities of the Corporation despite best efforts she filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation and its officers to pay the sum assured and other accruing benefits with interest.
(3.) The writ petition was opposed by the Corporation on the ground of maintainability as noted earlier. Alternatively the contention was raised that in case the High Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition then opportunity should be given to the Corporation to lead evidence in support of its plea of repudiation of the claim.;