Orissa High Court
The Branch Manager vs Raj Kishore Nayak And Another on 12 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11327 of 2016
(Through Hybrid mode)
The Branch Manager, India First .... Petitioners
Life Insurance Company Ltd. and
another
Mr. M. Sinha, Senior Advocate
Mr. Manmaya Ku. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Raj Kishore Nayak and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
Order No. 12.07.2022
09. 1. Mr. Sinha, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners (Insurance Company). He had moved the writ
petition on 24th June, 2022 and submitted, impugned is award
dated 18th May, 2016 made by the Permanent Lok Adalat
(PLA). The dispute could not have been adjudicated since his
clients had repudiated the death claim. There could not be a
question of how much his clients were to pay under the policy,
in settlement of the dispute, where there was outright
repudiation. According to him purported attempt at settlement
was misconceived and, therefore, the PLA did not derive
jurisdiction to at all adjudicate.
// 2 //
2. He submits, facts were, there was omission to disclose
that the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) had obtained other life
insurance policies. The PLA erroneously found in favour of
private opposite party that the DLA was illiterate and the
proposal form being in English, the DLA could not be faulted
for having omitted to supply the information she held other
life insurance policies. He relies on judgment of the Supreme
Court in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekhaben
Nareshbhai Rathod, reported in AIR 2019 SC 2039,
paragraphs 29 and 31.
3. On 28th June, 2022 Mr. Panigrahi, learned advocate had
appeared on behalf of the beneficiary and submitted, the PLA
has jurisdiction to attempt settlement between the parties and
on failure thereon, adjudicate and dispute. This because the
repudiation by petitioners was not duly made. As such, there
was no repudiation at all. He relies on sub-section (4) in
section 45 of Insurance Act, 1938 to submit, when the claim
was repudiated on ground of suppression and not fraud, the
insurance company was liable to refund the premium collected
along with the repudiation. This the insurance company did
not do.
4. Today Mr. Sharma, learned advocate appears on behalf
of the beneficiary and submits, in event Court holds following
paragraphs 29 and 31 in Rekhaben (supra), there should be
direction upon the insurance company to refund the premium
along with appropriate interest and cost. He submits further,
first premium of Rs.14,319/- was paid on 11th January, 2013
and in the next year too premium was paid. Mr. Sinha hands
// 3 //
up print of mail sent by Senior Associate-Litigation of his
clients, in which there is mention that repudiation in this case
was under old regulation and hence, premium need not be
refunded. On query from Court Mr. Sinha is unable to produce
regulation referred to in the mail.
5. Impugned award dated 18th May, 2016 is set aside and
quashed. Accompanying this direction, petitioners are put on
terms. Petitioners will refund total premium received along
with interest thereon calculated at simple interest of 6% per
annum on the total amount from 1st May, 2014 till date of
payment. In event petitioners do not comply with these terms
within three weeks of communication, the writ petition will be
deemed to have been dismissed.
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
RKS
