- (1.) Heard Sri Aijaz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jagdish Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17th May, 2005, whereby the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of insurance policy with the dependent of the deceased has come to be repudiated on the ground that there has been deliberate statement withholding the correct material information regarding health of insured, as well as the order dated 16th December, 2005, whereby the review application of the petitioner has been rejected and the order passed by the authorities dated 17th May, 2005 has been upheld. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 9th June, 2006, whereby an award of negative has been passed by the Insurance Company.
(3.) Assailing the order impugned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased insured had died due to dengue fever as it has come to be reported in the medical certificate issued by the Hospital, namely, Priti Hospital, where the deceased was admitted on 20th October, 2004 and died on 25th October, 2004. The death certificate issued by the Hospital states that the death is due to cardiac respiratory arrest. However, the medical history of the insured (deceased) claims that she was suffering from Dengue fever and not for any other disease. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar and others v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 2015 LawSuit (SC) 1706.;