- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Life Insurance Corporation of India for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 6905 of 2007 dated 3-7-2008 where by the writ petition and the award dated 28-8-2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hazaribag in PLA Case No. 1/2006 was upheld, and consequently, the award determining an amount of Rupees five lacs which was ordered to be paid by the appellant-Insurance company to the contesting respondent was upheld and thus affirmed.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the deceased had taken a policy of insurance for his life during his life time and had also paid the entire premium for this policy. The policy of insurance was issued for a sum of Rs. 5/- lakhs and hence after the death of the policy holder the widow of the deceased laid a claim for payment of amount towards the policy of insurance which he had taken. After the death of the deceased, the widow of the deceased, Most. Mohini filed a claim for payment of the amount on account of the policy of insurance, taken by her deceased-husband for which the entire premium for the policy had also been paid and duly accepted by the L.I.C. But, when the respondent-widow laid a claim for payment of the amount on account of the policy of insurance of her deceased-husband, the appellant-Corporation initiated an enquiry as in view of the appellant-L.I.C., the policy of insurance was obtained by the deceased, Rajesh Kumar by giving a false declaration in regard to his date of birth. According to the appellant-L.I.C., the date of birth given in the school register did not tally with the date of birth given out by the deceased policy holder. However, it has not been explained as to why the appellant-L.I.C. thought it appropriate to initiate an enquiry in regard to the date of birth of the deceased when the wife of the deceased raised a claim for payment of the amount of the policy. It is no doubt true that the appellant-L.I.C. had raised objection before the permanent Lok Adalat raising its objection against the claim of the respondent-wife on the ground of collusive policy of insurance. But the members of the Permanent Lok Adalat noted that insofar as the grant of policy of insurance is concerned that was not in doubt or disputed as the policy of insurance had duly been executed by the appellant-L.I.C. in favour of the deceased and after the deceased died, it was only at the stage of payment of the amount, that the L.I.C. raised an objection in regard to the validity of the policy of insurance. It is not body's case that the policy of insurance was a forged and fabricated document. What has been contended by the counsel for the appellant-L.I.C., is only to the extent that the policy of insurance had been obtained by the deceased by furnishing an incorrect date of birth which did not tally with the date of birth given out in the policy of insurance.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant-L.I.C. has further made an over zealous effort contrary to the pleading that the policy of insurance was forged which is clearly without any substance as the policy of insurance was not a forged and fabricated document, what has been contested is that as per the case of LIC the date of birth in the policy of insurance was not correctly recorded which prompted the L.I.C., to initiate an enquiry regarding its Issuance after the policy holder died.;