9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Opportunity for the Corporation to lead evidence regarding misrepresentation. 3. Scope of repudiation of the insurance claim u/s 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The Corporation contended that the writ petition should be dismissed as not maintainable, arguing that the case involves enforcement of contractual rights, which should be adjudicated through a civil suit. The learned single Judge, however, held that the liability of the Corporation under a life insurance policy is a statutory liability, and thus, a writ petition can lie under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Judge also opined that even if the liability were contractual, a writ petition could still be entertained. The Division Bench of the High Court concurred, stating that while relief under writ jurisdiction should rarely be granted, it is not impossible. 2. Opportunity to Lead Evidence: The Division Bench found merit in the Corporation's grievance that it should have been allowed to lead evidence to support its claim of misrepresentation by the insured. The Bench noted that the original records of the hospital and witnesses proving them should be examined to determine if there was any previous diagnosis of Myocardial infarction. Consequently, the Bench set aside the single Judge's judgment and remitted the case back to the writ court for fresh trial, allowing the Corporation to lead evidence. 3. Scope of Repudiation u/s 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938: The learned single Judge examined the provisions of section 45, which restricts the scope of repudiation of a claim by the insurer. The Judge held that the Corporation failed to provide satisfactory evidence to establish any of the conditions required u/s 45, such as material misrepresentation or fraudulent suppression of facts by the policyholder. The Division Bench agreed that the matter needed further examination to determine if there was any misrepresentation that would justify repudiation of the claim. Conclusion: The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 for enforcement of claims under life insurance policies, it should exercise caution, especially when the dispute involves complex factual determinations requiring oral and documentary evidence. The Court directed the Corporation to pay the sum awarded by the learned single Judge to the claimant and concluded that the pending case before the High Court need not proceed further.
|
