Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6508 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2021
(1 of 3) [CW-6967/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6967/2020
United India Insurance Company Limited, Through The Divisional
Manager, Mahatama Gandhi Hospital Road, Jodhpur, Through Its
Authorized Signatory Mr. B.l. Meena S/o S.N. Meena Age 50
Designated As Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Manju Lunkar, W/o Suresh Lunkar, 17-B, New Power
House Road, Jodhpur.
2. Suresh Lunkar S/o Shri Moolchand Lunkar, 17-B, New
Power House Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
04/03/2021
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being
taken while hearing the matters in Court.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the
following relief :-
"By an appropriate writ, order and / or direction, the
impugned award dated 17.02.2020 passed by the
permanent Lok Adalat in the case number 184/2016(PLA),
titled Manju Lunkar & Anr. Versus United India Insurance
Company Limited (Annexure 1), be quashed and set aside
being unjustified and arbitrary;"
In the narrow ambit of challenge to the order passed by the
Lok Adalat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
(Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:45:32 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-6967/2020]
policy amendment in 2018 was applicable and thus, the therapy in
question was not to be compensated.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the policy
was a renewed one and thus, related to the original terms, as the
petitioner was having the policy since 2007.
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Biman Krishna
Bose Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in
III (2001) CPJ 10 (SC).
Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of
this Court towards the para 16 of the award, which reads as
follows :-
"16& blh dze esa vnkyr dk ;g Hkh fofu'p; gS fd izkFkhZ;k eatw
ywadM+ ds lk{; 'kiFk &i= esa lk{; gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk blh izdkj
dh fpfdRlk esa fot; ey iVok dks fnukad 27&05&2019 dks
:i;s 1]68][email protected]& ¼v{kjs :i;s ,d yk[k vMlB gtkj] lkr lkS
ckbZl ek=½ dk Hkqxrku fd;k gS] ftldh iqf"V izn'kZ & ¼13½ ls
gksrh gSA vr% izkFkhZ Hkh iz'uxr Dyse izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA "
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing
the record of the case as well as precedent law cited by learned
counsel for the respondent, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
the permanent Lok Adalat order, as the other similarly situated
persons have been granted the benefit of the reimbursement for
the expenses of therapy, as per para 16 of the impugned
judgment, and there is no denial by the appellant.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly. The requisite
(Downloaded on 05/03/2021 at 08:45:32 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-6967/2020]
payment shall be paid to the respondent no.1, as respondent no.2
has already been expired.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
21-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!