- (1.) SHISHIR Kumar, J. The present writ petition has been filed for b quashing the order dated 30. 4. 2004 passed by the Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Allahabad. By order dated 12. 2. 2005 passed by Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Kanpur as communicated by order dated 17. 3. 2005 and order dated 19. 6. 2006 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman (Annexures 3,4 and 6 to the writ petition ). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of the policy amount as C claimed with interest at the rate of 18% till date.
(2.) THE facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner who is a nominee in the Life Insurance Corporation Policy No. 310239615 for Rs. 1 lakh only taken by the mother of the petitioner Smt. (Late) Sharmistha Basu from Life Insurance Corporation on yearly premium of Rs. 5. 543. 30. Smt. Sharmistha, Basu was an Income Tax assessee. THE policy for the sum assured was Rs. 1 lakh was taken by the petitioner's mother on 3. 3. 2000. Whereafter petitioner's mother died on 8. 12. 2001 at All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi. Petitioner being the nominee under the policy filed a claim of the sum assured with the Senior Branch Manager, Direct Agents Branch, Life Insurance Corporation of India on 15. 2. 2003. THE claim has been repudiated by the Divisional Manager on 30. 4. 2004. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. THEreafter, the petitioner filed a detailed representation for correct consideration of the claim on merits the Death Claim Division Zonal Office but the same has also been rejected by its order dated 17. 3. 2005. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Life Insurance Corporation officials, the petitioner preferred a complaint the Insurance Ombudsman. THE same was filed on 9. 4. 2006. THE said authority by impugned award dated 19. 6. 2006 has refused to relief to the petitioner and disposed of the claim without considering the material and relief facts of the case. THE said action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjustified and is also without any reason. It was submitted by the petitioner that mother of the petitioner was a healthy lady, as such, she filed a proposal form on 3. 3. 2000 when she was completely fit. The proposal form was thoroughly examined by the panel of doctors duly appointed by Life Insurance Corporation. Their medical report also confirmed to be of stable health and to be absolutely fit for her life to be ensured. Then the agent of the Life Insurance Corporation submitted the moral hazard report after witnessing the insuree at the time of the submission of the proposal form to this effect that she was perfectly in good health. The report was extracted and the Senior Branch Manager has accepted the amount after accepting the proposal and a policy was issued to the petitioner's mother. Therefore, the contract of insurance was complete and therefore, both the parties of the contract are bound by the terms and conditions. The mother of the petitioner suddenly became ill and for better check-up she was taken to All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi but unfortunately, she died on 8. 12. 2001, having a disease of cancer. The letter of repudiation has wrongly alleged that certain facts have been concealed at the time of proposal in the question given in 11 (a) (b) (d) and (e), though they were correctly answered. The insurer can repudiate the death claim in the policy in exercise of powers conferred by Section 45 of the Insurance Act. For the ready reference it is being quoted below: "17. That an insurer can repudiate a death claim against a policy in exercise of such a right having been conferred by Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, which reference is quoted below for ready reference: "policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years.- No policy of the Insurance effected the commencement of this Act shall after the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of this Act shall after the expiry of two years from the date on which it was effected, be called in question by an insurer on the ground that a statement made in the proposal for insurance or in any report of a medical officer, or referee, or friend of the insured, or in any other document leading to the issue of the policy, was inaccurate or false, unless the insurer shows that such statement, (1) was on a material matter or suppressed facts which it was material to disclose and that it was fraudulently made) by the policy holder and that the policy holder knew at the time of making it that the statement was false (2) or that it suppressed facts which it was material to disclose): (Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent the insurer from calling for proof that the age of life insurer was incorrectly stated in the proposal ). "
(3.) IN such situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the respondents are liable to be quashed. Before entering into the dispute, this Court has to consider the scope and ambit of writ jurisdiction as it has been held in 2001 (2) SCC 160 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Asha Goel (Smt) and others ). The Supreme Court held that the determination of questions under the writ jurisdiction will depend on consideration of several factors, like, whether a writ petitioner is merely attempting to enforce his/her contractual rights or the case raises important questions of law and constitutional issue; the nature of the dispute raised; the nature of inquiry necessary for determination of the dispute etc. The matter is to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. While the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied altogether, Court must bear in mind the self-imposed restriction consistently followed by the High Courts all these years after the constitutional power came into existence in not entertain writ petitions filed for enforcement of purely contractual rights and obligations which involve disputed questions of facts. The Insurance Act, 1938 with the latest amendment is a beneficial piece of legislation. Therefore, if a benefit which the petitioner is legally entitled has been refused, Court can enter upon the arena to render equitable justice. The Court of equity cannot shut out the eyes taking plea that there is mere or bare disputed questions of fact. The disputed questions of fact cannot be ground for rejection unless or until it is proved beyond the doubt Court of equity under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the dispute is such that cannot be resolved by way of writ petition. If he thinks the factum of the case within the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Asha Goel (supra), there is no doubt that the writ petition can be invoked in this circumstances.;