IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4395 of 2006 SMT.SAROJ KUWAR @ SAROJ DEVI wife of Late Vivekanand Pandey, resident of village & Post Officer- Chotaki Amaw, P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary Finance Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2.Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer Gauri Ganj, Varanasi (U.P.) 3.The Regional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kanpur (U.P.) 4.Branch Manager, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, Branch Office- Mugalsarai (U.P.) 5.Marketing Manager, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, Divisional Office Varanasi (U.P.) 6.Marketing Manager, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, Divisional Office, Patna (U.P.) ----------- 5 27.01.2009 Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner challenges the communication dated 31st of March, 2001 communicating the petitioner that the life insurance policy no. 281751164 which was taken by her late husband, on enquiry, it was found that the signature of the husband of the petitioner on the proposal taken on 21.02.1996 was not of the proposer i.e. the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner had taken the aforesaid life insurance policy as per the proposal dated 21.02.1996 from the respondent no.4, the Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation at Mughalsarai (U.P.). The husband of the petitioner died on 01.06.1996 and thereupon the claim for proceeds of 2 the above policy was made by the petitioner who was the nominee. The claim was repudiated as per the letter dated 31st of March, 2001 issued by the respondent no.2, the Divisional Manager of the Corporation at Varanasi. The petitioner against the said communication filed representation for consideration before the respondent no.3, the Regional Manager of the Corporation at Regional Office, Kanpur. The Regional Office, however, communicated the rejection of the claim on account of the decision taken by Review Committee vide letter dated 23rd of September, 2002 as contained in Annexure-3. Thereafter petitioner made fresh representation which was rejected again and communicated to the petitioner as per the letter dated 31st of March, 2001 as also the rejection of the legal notice and communication to the petitioner by letter dated 30th January, 2003 (Annexure-5), issued by the respondent no.2.) The petitioner has filed the writ application on 23rd of March, 2006 assailing the orders contained in Annexure-1, 3 & 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as stated in paragraph 15 of the writ application the petitioner is a Pardanasheen lady and belongs to a poor family and is suffering with irreparable loss on account of illegal repudiation of her claim. It is 3 submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the claim has been illegally repudiated on the alleged ground that the signature on the proposal form of her late husband was found to be forged, which is without any valid justification. It is submitted that the proposal was signed by the husband of the petitioner in present of the agent of the L.I.C. and the same was verified by the Medical Officer appointed by the L.I.C. Therefore, repudiation of the claim of the aforesaid L.I.C. policy was not correct and justified in law. The respondent, on the other hand, by filing counter affidavit has opposed the writ application. At the outset it has been submitted that the writ application has been filed challenging the repudiation of the claim of the petitioner on 31st of March, 2001 (Annexure-1) on the ground that the signature of the husband of the petitioner on the proposal form was found to be forged. The said signature was sent to the hand writing expert for its scientific examination, and upon such examination, as per the report as contained in Annexure-A (series) dated 08.08.2000 the Corporation found that the signature of the proposer was forged. At the instance of the petitioner the matter was re-examined by the Review Committee of the Corporation which found the signature of the proposer 4 to be forged, and as such, rejected the representation by way of review and communicated the same to the petitioner as per its letter dated 23.09.2002 (Annexure- 3). The petitioner thereafter served a legal notice claiming for the proceeds of the aforesaid policy, which was again rejected and communicated to the petitioner that the request of the petitioner was examined by the claims committee of the Corporation which consisted a retired Judge as a Member vide letter dated 30th January, 2003 (Annexure-5). Learned counsel submits that besides the fact that the signature of the proposer i.e. the husband of the petitioner was forged which was established on account of the examination by the Hand writing Expert, who has given a detailed report on 08.08.2000, as contained in Annexure-A (series) to the counter affidavit. The present writ application has been filed after three years without giving any explanation for such delay, and as such, the present writ application suffers from serious delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ application deserves to be dismissed. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it appears that the L.I.C. policy in question was taken in the name of the husband of the petitioner from the respondent no.4 and 5 the same was repudiated by the respondent no.2 and affirmed by the respondent no.3. Finally the representation was rejected and communicated by the respondent no.2. Besides the above, the letters contained in Annexures- 1, 3 & 5 were communicated at the village address of the husband of the petitioner in the district of Kaimur. No part of transaction/correspondence has taken place in Bihar save and except the internal correspondence between the officials of the Corporation as would be appearing from Annexure-6. Besides the above, there are two important aspects of the matter. Firstly, the claim of the L.I.C. policy in question was repudiated by the respondent-Corporation on account of their finding which claims to be based on the detailed report of the Hand-writing Expert that the signature was forged, and as such, the proposal itself was a fraudulent one. So far as the question that whether the signature on the proposal form was forged or not, the same depends upon relevant evidence. The petitioner claims that the signature was genuine whereas the stand of the Corporation is that the signature was forged. Therefore, this serious disputed questions of fact with regard to a document being forged or not can not be appropriately adjudicated in a writ proceeding. Apart from the same, 6 the claim was repudiated and communicated as per the letter dated 31st of March, 2001 ( Annexure-1) which was reaffirmed and communicated to the petitioner as per the letter dated 23rd of September, 2002 (Annexure- 3) as also the rejection of the legal notice and communication to the petitioner by letter dated 30th January, 2003 (Annexure-5). The present writ application has been filed on 23rd of March, 2006 after delay of about three years for which there is no explanation in the writ application. For the reasons and discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this writ application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)