IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7590 of 2008 Date of decision 8.05.2008 Sudesh Kumari.......Petitioner Vs. The President, Permanent Lok Adalat etc.....Respondent. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.Kumar Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mrs. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner claimant has challenged order dated 13.04.2006 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Service, U.T, Chandigarh, substantially dismissing her claim based on LIC policies taken by her husband in the year 1999 and 2001. There was one Vijay Singh Rana(deceased)who had obtained LIC policy bearing No.161731377 on 28.01.1999. He also obtained a second policy bearing No.162074427 in the year 2001. With regard to the first policy the husband petitioner had defaulted in making payment of seven installments from 01/2002 to 07/2003. It is appropriate to mention that the installments were required to be paid monthly which were later on charged to payment quarterly. He got the policy revived on 18.09.2003 by giving a declaration of good health, whereas the finding recorded by the Lok Adalat is that he was suffering from serious ailment and remain admitted in PGI from 22.4.1999 to 13.05.1999. It has been found that he was suffering from Periampullary Carcinoma since 1999 and had undergone dissection. When he got his first policy revived on 18.09.2003 a false declaration was made with regard to his health. Even with regard to second policy obtained in 2001 material facts regarding the disease of Periampullary Carcinoma was concealed. The Tribunal has recorded its finding by observing that the false declaration made by Sh.Vijay Singh Rana has been proved from the record of a prestigious Government Institution like PGI, Chandigarh. The Lok Adalat applied the ratio of the judgment of the National Commission rendered in the case of LIC of India and another V. Parveen Dhingra II(2003) CPJ 70(NC) and rightly distinguished the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Gupta V. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 2004 , Rajasthan 327. The Lok Adalat however awarded the petitioner sum due under paid-up value of the first policy bearing No.161731377. The petitioner was also held entitled to interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of repudiation of her claim i.e. 31.03.2005 till the date of payment if the paid-up value of the policy was not made within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of that order. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we are of the considered view that the instant writ petition lacks merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. Once it has been found that the declaration given by the husband of the petitioner with regard to his health was false then there is no opportunity for granting any benefit of the insurance policy to him. Whatever, possible benefit the petitioner could have obtained has been granted by Lok Adalat by directing the respondent to pay the petitioner the sum due under paid-up value of the first policy bearing No.161731377. Even the interest @ 7% p.a. has also been awarded if the payment of paid-up value was not made within 15 days from the date of order. There is no merit in the petition the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 8.05.2008 Judge anil