Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) SRI Amar Nath late husband of the Petitioner took a policy from Life Insurance Corporation of India(L.I.C.) Respondent No. 1 under plan and term 133 - 20 triple cover. Number of the policy was 283344966 and it was taken on 30.9.2003. In less than three months i.e. on 22.12.2003 Sri Amar Nath died in District Hospital Ballia where he had been admitted a day before. It was a case of suspected food poisoning. In viscera report dated 9.11.2011, organic insecticide poison was found. Petitioner herself lodged F.I.R. on 1.8.2005 in PS Kotwali Ballia in which final report was submitted on 21.10.2005 and accepted on 19.11.2005 as it could not be ascertained by the police that who administered poison (para 5 of the writ petition). Petitioner being nominee lodged the claim with the Branch Manager LIC Branch Ballia. The matter was referred to senior Divisional Manager who made the investigation and through his letter dated 3.3.2006/20.3.2006 rebutted the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that late Sri Amar Nath had committed suicide and suicide clause of the policy was operative.
(3.) LATE Sri Amar Nath had taken two more policies from Life Insurance Corporation. In respect of both those policies due payments were made to the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner her husband had not committed suicide, some one else had administered poison and the officers concerned of the LIC invented the excuse of suicide to deny the claim in respect of policy in question taken on 30.9.2003 (para 6 of the writ petition). In respect of policy in question No. payment was made. Petitioner lodged the complaint with Insurance Ombudsman where it was registered as complaint No. L -743/21/001/06 -07. The Ombudsman decided the matter on 18.5.2007 the copy of the said order is Annexure 2. Through Annexure 2 it was held that instead of triple the amount, only the amount for which policy was taken i.e. Rs. 5,50,000/ - should be paid to the Petitioner while under the policy in question three times of the said amount i.e. total Rs. 16,50,000/ -should have been payable in the normal course. Through this writ petition order contained in Annexure 2 has been challenged in so far as it is against the Petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner triple the amount i.e. Rs. 16,50,000/ -should have been paid to the Petitioner.;