WP(C) 250/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr J Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr AJ Das, lear ned counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner, in present petition, is that during the life-time of her husband he took out 2 insurance policies for Rs.40,000/- and R s.50,000/- on 28 March 2000 and 25 December 2000, respectively, covering his lif e. According to the petitioner, after the death of his husband though she filed necessary applications on 25 July 2001 for payment of amount under the said poli cies, the same has been repudiated by the insurance company vide order dated 5 A ugust 2000, on the ground that her husband furnished incorrect information on th e proposal forms. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the ins urance agent on whose instance those policies were taken out by the late husband of the petitioner, to the knowledge of the petitioner, had never asked any ques tion nor did her husband fill up any form except putting his signatures on the p roposal and hence anything written on such proposal by the insurance agent canno t be the ground for repudiation of the claim of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the original insurance policies which were surrendered at the ti me of making the claim, have also not been returned by the insurance company des pite the repudiation of the claim. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since certain inf ormation on proposal forms relating to the state of the health of the insured we re furnished, which were subsequently found to be incorrect, the claim of petiti oner against such policies has been repudiated. It has also been submitted that since the matter requires examination of question of fact, this Court may not is sue any direction to the respondent insurance company to satisfy the claim of th e petitioner without first recording finding of fact which can conveniently be d one by the Insurance Ombudsman. It appears from the pleadings in the writ petition that the claim of the petitioner against those policies has been repudiated on 5 August 2000 on the g round of furnishing incorrect information relating to state of health of the pet itioner’s husband. Though the petitioner has claimed that on the proposal forms nothing was written by her husband and whatever was written was written by the i nsurance agent, such assertion, however, has been denied by the respondent. Unle ss such disputed question of fact is resolved, which cannot conveniently be deci ded in a writ proceeding, no direction as has been sought for in the present wri t petition can be issued. The petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of app roaching the Insurance Ombudsman for resolving such dispute. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is dispos ed of with observation that the petitioner may approach Insurance Ombudsman seek ing redressal of her grievances and in the event such approach is made the Ombud sman shall definitely decide the proceeding at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from such approach, keeping in view the fact that the clai m had been lodged by the petitioner after the death of her husband, who, stated to have died on 25 July 2001. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.