Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sen.Div.Manager L.I.C. And Anr vs Rajak Khan And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:34825) on 6 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:34825]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2050/2004
1. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office: Jeewan Prakash, Post Box No.66, Jaipur Road,
Bikaner.
2. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, in front
of Bharatiya Hospital, Churu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajak Khan S/o Vajid Khan, by caste Kayamkhani, resident of
Jasarasar, Tehsil & District Churu.
2. Vijid Khan S/o Anu Khan, by caste Kayamkhani, resident of
Jasarasar, Tehsil & District Churu.
3. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Law,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Chairman, Standing Lok Adalat, Churu.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Purohit
Mr. Shashank R. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot with
Mr. Bhawani Singh
Ms. Vandana
Mr. V.K. Mehta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
06/08/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 20.02.2004 passed by the Permanent Lok
Adalat in pre-litigation case No.33/2003 and awarded a sum of
Rs.48,029/- to be paid to the respondents.
2. The facts in nutshell are that mother of respondent No.1 late
Smt. Janat Bano obtained a insurance policy amounting to
Rs.50,000/- and a policy No.500190096 was issued to her on
01.04.1997. Respondent No.1 was shown to be the nominee in the
application form by Janat Bano while seeking the said insurance
policy. The said insurance policy on account of non payment of
premium was discontinued. However, on depositing the premium
the same was again renewed on 18.01.2002.
[2025:RJ-JD:34825] (2 of 6) [CW-2050/2004]
2.1. Unfortunately, the policy holder, Janat Bano expired on
14.05.2002 on account of brain haemorrhage. Respondent No.1,
being nominee of the said insurance policy, submitted his claim
before insurance company. However, the same was rejected vide
letter dated 28.12.2002.
2.2. Being aggrieved by the rejections of the claim, an application
was submitted by the respondent No.1 before Chairman,
Permanent Lok Adalat, Churu. The Permanent Lok Adalat by the
impugned order dated 20.02.2004 allowed the claim petition with
a direction to the petitioners to pay sum of Rs. 48,029/- while
deducting sum of Rs.1971/- which was paid earlier.
3. This Court while issuing notices in the present writ petition
passed an interim order on 18.05.2004. The interim order is
reproduced as under:-
"Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why
the writ be not admitted. Issue notice of stay application
also. In the meanwhile, if the petitioner deposits the amount
under award before the learned Court below within one
week, the execution of the impugned order shall remain
stayed. It is made clear that the amount so deposited by the
petitioner shall not be paid to the claimants without express
order of this Court."
4. In view of the interim order dated 18.05.2004 the award
amount as passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was deposited by
petitioner before the Civil Judge, Churu.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the
impugned order made the following submissions:-
i. The Permanent Lok Adalat committed serious error in
allowing the claim petition of the respondent No.1 as there
was suppression of material fact by Janat Bano at the time
of obtaining the policy. She was suffering from epilepsy
[2025:RJ-JD:34825] (3 of 6) [CW-2050/2004]
(fits) and if the said fact was disclosed then perhaps the
petitioner company would not have executed any such
policy in her favour. In support of the arguments advanced,
the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Branch
Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Dalbir Kaur 2020 INSC 583, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court while dealing with such identical issue, has
observed that if the policy holder suppresses any material
fact with regard to health condition while obtaining the
policy then his or her claim could be refused.
ii. Despite medical prescription of the doctor being placed
before the Permanent Lok Adalat, it did not believe the
same and proceeded to pass an award while recording the
fact that mere medical prescription is not sufficient in itself
to establish the fact that the policy holder was suffering
from any such disease.
iii. Earlier respondent No.1, the nominee of the policy in
question, had accepted a sum of Rs.1971/- as full and final
settlement of amount towards the policy in question.
6. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1 and No.2 made the following submissions :-
i. Insurance policy was issued in favour of Janat Bano on
01.04.1997 after satisfying the insurer with regard to the
health condition of Janat Bano.
[2025:RJ-JD:34825] (4 of 6) [CW-2050/2004]
ii. The policy was renewed on 18.01.2002 and this fact is
sufficient in itself to establish that Janat Bano was medically fit
at the time of issuance of policy so also at the time of renewal.
iii. As per the death certificate, the cause of death was brain
haemorrhage and not on account of epilepsy. The insurance
company has not proved this fact before the Permanent Lok
Adalat by submitting appropriate documentary and oral
evidence to establish the fact that on the date when the policy
was issued in favour of Jannat Bano she was suffering from any
disease such as epilepsy. Since this fact was not established,
the learned Permanent Lok Adalat was right in allowing the
claim.
iv.In counter to argument with regard to the earlier settlement,
it is submitted that it was not possible to enter into settlement
with the petitioner company on 21.03.2003 as on the said date
respondent No.1 was not available in the country. Even
otherwise, it would be highly improbable to believe that claim
of Rs.50,000/- would be settled at a meagre amount of
Rs.1971/-.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. The insurance company has denied the claim on the ground
of suppression of the past disease which Janat Bano had at the
time of taking policy. This contention of the insurance company
cannot be accepted as there was lack of material evidence to
establish the fact that Janat Bano, the policy holder, was suffering
from any disease such as epilepsy. Once a policy is issued it is
[2025:RJ-JD:34825] (5 of 6) [CW-2050/2004]
presumed that insurance company has satisfied itself with regard
to health condition of the person. That being so the burden was on
the insurance company to establish this fact by leading material
evidence as per law. The mere submission of medical prescription
unless those are exhibited and are proved cannot be treated
reliable evidence to establish the fact that Janat Bano was
suffering from disease of epilepsy.
9. The Permanent Lok Adalat noted this contention that earlier
some settlement was arrived at and payment was also accepted
by the respondent No.1 and even learned counsel for the
respondent does not refute about the payment of Rs.1971/-,
however, respondent No.1 never gave in writing about the claim to
be settled. It is submitted that document is forged as the same
was never signed by respondent No.1. More so, he was not
available in India on the date when this settlement is alleged to
have reached by the parties. In view of the above factual position
it can't be accepted that the respondent No.1 agreed his claim to
be finally settled at Rs.1971/-.
10. As far as judgment cited by learned counsel for the
petitioners with regard to the suppression of material fact is
concerned, this Court is of the opinion that there is no doubt about
the proposition as laid by Hon'ble Apex Court that if a person
obtains a policy while suppressing material fact then his/her claim
is required to be rejected. However, whether there is suppression
of material fact or not is required to be established.
11. In the present case, since the petitioners failed to establish
the fact that Janat Bano was suffering from any serious ailment
[2025:RJ-JD:34825] (6 of 6) [CW-2050/2004]
such as epilepsy and this fact was suppressed at the time of
obtaining insurance policy. Unless this fact could have been
established, it can not be said that there is any material
suppression at the behest of Janat Bano while applying for the
policy.
12. The insurance policy is not disputed. The policy was in
currency at the time of death of Janat Bano is also not disputed.
The factum of death of Janat Bano on account of brain
haemorrhage is also not disputed. That being so the burden was
on insurance company to establish both facts i.e. suppression of
material fact of disease at the time of claiming policy so also the
fact about past settlement of claim, however, petitioner failed to
establish both facts before the Permanent Lok Adalat. In given
facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or perversity
in the finding given by the Permanent Lok Adalat.
13. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ
petition is dismissed. Needless to observe that the amount which
petitioners have already deposited, be disbursed by the trial
Court, forthwith.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL), J
8-AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
