[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Vikas Kumar Verma on 16 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:11251
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.1758 of 2023
16th December, 2025
Manager Life Insurance Corporation
of India and another .............Petitioners
Versus
Vikas Kumar Verma ..........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner-
Insurance Company seeks quashing of the impugned
judgment and order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in
Case No.89 of 2022, Vikas Kumar vs. Manager, L.I.C. and
another, whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the
claim of the respondent against the petitioner-Insurance
Corporation and directed it to pay a sum of ₹5,00,000/-
under Insurance Policy No.239301587.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the
respondent's mother purchased Insurance Policy
No.239301587 from the petitioner-Insurance Corporation
on 03.01.2021. After the purchase of the said policy, the
respondent's mother expired on 05.05.2021. Thereafter, the
respondent submitted an application before the petitioner-
Insurance Corporation for payment of the insurance
amount under the policy purchased by his mother. The
said application was rejected vide letter dated 28.02.2022
on the ground that, at the time of purchase of the policy,
the respondent's mother (life assured) had not disclosed
2025:UHC:11251
that she was suffering from diabetes mellitus, despite there
being a specific question to that effect in the proposal form.
It was alleged that the life assured gave a false answer by
writing "NO" against the said column. The petitioner
further contended that an inquiry conducted from the
doctor, under whose treatment the respondent's mother
was at the time of her death, revealed that she had been
suffering from diabetes for the last three years.
3. Aggrieved by the rejection letter dated
28.02.2022, the respondent filed a complaint before the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar,
which was registered as Case No. 89 of 2022, Vikas Kumar
vs. Manager, L.I.C. and another. In response thereto, the
petitioner-Insurance Corporation filed its written
statement/objections on 22.07.2022. Upon consideration of
the facts and material on record, the Permanent Lok Adalat
allowed the claim of the respondent and directed the
petitioner-Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of
₹5,00,000/- under the said insurance policy.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the respondent's mother purchased the policy on
03.01.2021 and expired on 05.05.2021, i.e., within four
months from the date of purchase of the policy. On this
basis, it was argued that, at the time of purchasing the
policy, the deceased/life assured was well aware of her
critical health condition and that the policy was obtained
by deceiving the petitioner-Insurance Corporation. This
fact, according to learned counsel, is evident from the
rejection letter dated 28.02.2022. Therefore, the direction
issued by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Rudrapur, Udham
Singh Nagar, requiring the petitioner-Insurance
Corporation to pay a sum of ₹5,00,000/- to the respondent
is entirely wrong, unfair, and unjust on the facts of the
2025:UHC:11251
case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other
hand, submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat, after duly
appreciating the pleadings, documents, and evidence on
record, has rightly allowed the claim of the respondent and
directed the petitioner-Insurance Corporation to pay a sum
of ₹5,00,000/- under Insurance Policy No.239301587. It
was contended that the impugned order is well-reasoned,
lawful, and passed within the jurisdiction of the Permanent
Lok Adalat, and does not suffer from any perversity,
illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was
further submitted that the respondent's mother had validly
purchased the insurance policy on 03.01.2021 after
completing all necessary formalities as required by the
petitioner-Insurance Corporation. The policy was issued
after due scrutiny, and the premium was accepted by the
petitioner without raising any objection at the time of
issuance. After the unfortunate death of the respondent's
mother on 05.05.2021, the respondent, being the legal heir
and nominee, rightly submitted a claim for settlement of
the policy amount. The petitioner-Insurance Corporation
rejected the claim vide letter dated 28.02.2022 on the
alleged ground of non-disclosure of diabetes mellitus. It
was argued that such rejection is arbitrary, unjust, and
based on conjectures. The petitioner has failed to establish
that the alleged ailment had any direct nexus with the
cause of death or that there was any intentional and
fraudulent suppression of material facts by the life assured.
The burden of proving suppression of material facts lies
squarely upon the insurer. Mere allegations based on a
post-death inquiry are insufficient to deny a legitimate
insurance claim, particularly when the policy was issued
after due medical and documentary verification by the
2025:UHC:11251
petitioner itself.
6. Upon careful consideration, this Court finds that
the Permanent Lok Adalat has recorded findings of fact
after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The
petitioner has failed to place any convincing material to
demonstrate that the alleged ailment was intentionally
concealed with fraudulent intent or that such non-
disclosure had a direct nexus with the cause of death. Mere
reliance upon a post-death inquiry or the proximity
between the issuance of the policy and the death of the life
assured, by itself, is not sufficient to establish fraud or
misrepresentation. It is well settled that the scope of
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is limited, and this Court does not sit in appeal over the
findings of fact recorded by a competent forum. Unless
there is patent illegality, perversity, or a jurisdictional error,
interference is not warranted. No such infirmity has been
demonstrated in the impugned order. The Permanent Lok
Adalat has acted within its jurisdiction and has passed a
reasoned and lawful order, which does not call for
interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit
and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated
09.05.2023 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar is upheld.
8. No order as to costs.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.12.2025
SK
