1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Ramesh Chander Vs. Manager Claims Salary Saving Scheme of Indian Life Insurance Company Ltd. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5696/2003 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of order : 07th February, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSITCE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. P.R. Bera for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar for the respondent. --------- BY THE COURT:- 1. The application for impleading as party respondent to the Life Insurance Corporation is allowed. Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar appears for Life Insurance Corporation. Reply on behalf of Life Insurance Corporation has already been filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for final disposal as agreed by them. 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for challenging the repudiation of the claim lodged by the petitioner, husband of the insured person Smt. Karuna Gupta. 2/5 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the initial premium receipt given by the respondent Life Insurance Corporation vide Ex.2 dated 30th January, 1998, the name of the person insured was wrongly shown as Smt. Aruna Gupta instead of correct name Smt. Karuna Gupta. On account of this mistake of Life Insurance Corporation, the learned counsel submits that the Government School in which his wife Smt. Karuna Gupta was working as a teacher did not deduct the monthly insurance premium of Rs.284/- which was required to be deducted by the school from her salary every month and was required to be directly deposited with the Life Insurance Corporation on month to month basis. He, therefore, contended that Life Insurance Corporation after the death of said insured person Smt. Karuna Gupta took place on 6.4.1999 could not repudiate the claim against the said Insurance Policy No.181445980 for the sum of Rs.50,000/- treating the said policy as lapsed. He further submitted that vide Exhibit 3, letter dated 7.4.1999 of Mr. Prahalad Panwar, Development Officer of LIC of India, the agent of Insurance Company got the said policy bond corrected by correcting the name of Smt. Aruna Gupta to Smt. Karuna Gupta. He has, therefore, submitted that the claim was wrongly rejected vide exhibit 4 dated 13.11.2000 and hence, the present writ petition was filed. 3/5 5. Mr. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation on the side opposite submitted that firstly there was no fault on the part of Life Insurance Corporation and since the premium was not paid either by the person insured, her husband or by the School concerned where she was employed after the first payment of the premium vide Exhibit 2 dated 30th January, 1998, the said policy bond was cancelled and, therefore, no question of payment of any claim arose. He further drew attention of the Court towards document Annex.R/1 which is an authority letter of the person insured Smt. Karuna Gupta to the Head Master of the Government School where she was employed in which the name of Smt. Karuna Gupta is clearly shown. He therefore, submitted that there was no question of the said school committing any mistake of non-payment of the premium notwithstanding the mistake in the first premium receipt which was issued to the said insured person. He, therefore, justified the repudiation of the claim by the Life Insurance Corporation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 7. It appears that the said person insured did not take any step for payment of premium after the first premium was 4/5 paid by her on 30th January, 1998. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the responsibility of the concerned school and on account of this mistake of the Life Insurance Corporation, the school did not make any deduction, does not impress this Court. Firstly, the authority letter Ex.R/1 produced by the Life Insurance Corporation clearly shows that the authority letter given by the person insured clearly indicated her correct name as Smt. Karuna Gupta, therefore, the said school cannot be said to have been misled in any manner by the first premium receipt Ex.2 dated 30.1.1998 which of course contained the mistaken name as Smt. Aruna Gupta. Moreover there is no reason to believe that the said insured person Smt. Karuna Gupta after January 1998 till her death on 6th April, 1999 did not come to know of the said non-payment of the premium by way of deduction from her salary and consequent payment to the Life Insurance Corporation. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said insured person or her husband, the present petitioner, took any steps for continuous payment of the premium on the said insurance policy and keeping it alive. On the other hand, just on the next date of her death, it appears that said petitioner took immediate steps for correction of the name in the policy from Smt. Aruna Gupta to Smt. Karuna Gupta which correction was also carried out by the Life Insurance Corporation on the basis of letter of the Development Officer Mr. 5/5 Prahalad Panwar Exhibit 3 dated 7.4.1999. It also does not appear from the record that either in the said letter dated 7.4.1999 Exhibit 3 the fact of death of Smt. Karuna Gupta which had taken place on the previous day on 6.4.1999 was disclosed either to the said Development Officer or to the Life Insurance Corporation. Therefore, it can be presumed that the said correction in the name was carried out by the Life Insurance Corporation in ignorance of the fact of the death of Smt. Karuna Gupta. The fact that no premium was paid on the aforesaid policy of Life Insurance Corporation after first payment in January 1998 is not even in dispute. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the mistake of the Government School of non-payment of premium also cannot be heard in the matter because the said school is not even arrayed as respondent in the writ petition before this Court. 8. This Court finds no fault on the part of the Life Insurance Corporation in repudiating the claim in the aforesaid circumstances. 9. The writ petition is accordingly, found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.1 babulal/-