IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 10691 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 682 011, THROUGH THE HANDS OF ITS MANAGER (LEGAL & HOUSING PROPERTY FINANCE), SRI.R.SURENDRAN, AGED 58, S/O.LATE RAMAN PILLAI, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM – 682 011. BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE, SMT.THANKOM.G, SRI.ADEEPANWAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, KOCHI. 2. SMT.KAVITHA GIREESH, W/O.LATE I.A.GIREESH, ILLIKAL HOUSE, VASUPURAM, MATTATHUR KUNNU P.O. - 680 684. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10691/2009-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 05/12/2008 SERVED ON THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 08/09/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL POLICY DTD. 05/11/2004. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD 17/04/2006 TO 22/04/2006 ISSUED BY AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD 17/04/2006 TO 22/04/2006 ISSUED BY AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 06/03/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DTD. 13/01/2009. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE AWARD NO.IO/KCH/LI/59/2008-09 DTD. 05/02/2009 PASSED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 10691 of 2009 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Late I.A.Gireesh, the husband of the second respondent, subscribed a life insurance policy for Rs.75,000/-. On the death of the insured, the second respondent raised a claim. That was rejected by Ext.P6. The second respondent moved the first respondent claiming benefit of the policy. By Ext.P8 award, the Insurance Ombudsman directed the payment of the death claim. It is challenging the aforesaid award, the mighty Life Insurance Corporation has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. This writ petition was admitted and notice was ordered by this Court by order dated 02-04-2009. However, steps were not taken for service of notice on the first respondent and at the same time, the second respondent was not given the benefit of Ext.P8 despite absence of any order staying the award. In such circumstances, in an attempt to W.P.(C) No.10691/09 : 2 : make the case ripe for hearing, the second respondent filed I.A.15412/2010 for deleting the first respondent. When that I.A. came up for orders on 09-11-2010, this Court had to reject that IA for the reason that a respondent cannot seek a deletion of another respondent. However, taking note of the grievance of the second respondent that the case could not be heard as service was incomplete, this Court passed order dated 12-11-2010, that notice shall be served on the first respondent by special messenger. 3. Despite that order, steps were not taken and the case is again coming up in the defect list with the endorsement of the Registry that 'steps are not taken'. Though the counsel for the petitioner submitted before me today that process has been remitted, I see absolutely no justification to keep the matter pending any further. First of all, there is a serious default committed by the petitioner in not taking steps in time to serve notice on the first respondent and even as on date, going by the endorsement, that position W.P.(C) No.10691/09 : 3 : continues, despite the order passed by this Court on 12-11- 2010 to serve notice on the first respondent by special messenger. Even otherwise I do not think that a public sector organization like the LIC should fight a litigation against a widow to deprive her for Rs.75,000/-, which is nothing but the amount due under a policy of insurance subscribed by her deceased husband. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks