- (1.) The petitioner seeks for an issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents-Corporation to pay the amount covered under the policy of life insurance for policy No. 171455675, dated 28.03.1997. The admitted case is that a proposal was made and a cover note was also issued after receiving the premium from the petitioner's husband, who was the assured, for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the event of death during the currency of policy. The amount of yearly premium of Rs.10,260/- has been paid in two installments. The assured died on 18.05.1997 and an information regarding death was reported to have been given on 07.06.1997. A claim form had been submitted on 16.06.1997 and when it was not favorably considered, a representation was given by the petitioner on 25.03.1998. Still not having received the benefit, the petitioner issued a notice on 21.05.1998 and ultimately filed the writ petition for the mandamus seeking the relief referred to above.
(2.) The statement in defence is two fold: (i) the writ petition itself is not maintainable and appropriate remedy is only by means of a suit, (ii) the second contention is that there was a suppression of material fact in the petition of not disclosing the details of his income and occupation. It must be immediately noticed that these objections are taken up for the first time in the written statement filed before the Court and they do not come by means of any responses for the representations or the notice issued by the petitioner prior to the institution of the petition.
(3.) As regards the first contention that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, the learned counsel for the LIC would make its reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Smt. Kiran Sinha, 1985 AIR(SC) 1265and the decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Goel, 2001 2 SCC 160. As regards the first judgment in Kiran Sinha's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was ultimately dismissing the writ petition in a case where the Attorney General appearing on behalf of the LIC made a concession before a Court that he would secure full settlement of a claim at an Rs. 40,000/-. The petitioner was securing the relief and therefore, the Court felt inclined to dismiss it. In the latter case in Asha Goel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court carved out an exception mat in all contractual matters, the appropriate remedy would be only a civil suit and the Corporation would take care and caution in repudiating the contract and that it should not be dealt with in a mechanical or routine manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held in the same judgment that intervention by means of a writ petition could be done in exceptional cases. I would hold that this case admits of such exceptional situation where the LIC had not at any time prior to filing of the statement repudiated the claim. I have given the details of the information, the claim, the representations and the notice given in quick succession, to all of which there had been only a stone silence from the LIC. A public authority that receives premium from a consumer could not have been inert and would not be required to be prodded and pushed only through the writ petitions. It would be an irresponsible defence to contend that remedy in a writ cannot lie even in a situation where LIC has acted with a heartless lack of response. I find the situation to be exceptional, for, receipt of the premium is not denied nor is the issue of a cover note denied. It is now sought to be contended faintly by the counsel appearing on behalf of the LIC that mere was, no policy of insurance at all. If the issue had been one of fact mat there was never a contract of insurance and it would have required probing into facts, that itself would have been justification to deny the petitioner the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, I find that there is no such express averment even in the written statement. The amount of premium has been received through the authorized agent bearing Code No. 1433-171 of 27.03.1997 and that me proposal review slip/cover note had been issued to the husband of the petitioner being policy No. 171455675, dated 28.03.1997. It could have become possible for the Insurance Corporation to revoke the policy, if it had any valid justification, before the contingency of death arose. That revocation also does not come till the writ petition is filed. It is only in response to the writ petition that it is contended that the petitioner was not entitled to any sum assured in the policy since there had been nondisclosure of relevant facts.;