High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Tat a AI G General I nsurance Com pany Lt d. has filed t his pet it ion under Art icle 227 of Const it ut ion, challenging j udgm ent dat ed 05.03.2025, rendered by Perm anent Lok Adalat , Haridwar in Case No. 41 of

2022. By t he said j udgm ent , applicat ion m ade by respondent under Sect ion 22- C1 of Legal Services Aut horit ies Act , 1987 was allowed; pet it ioner was direct ed t o pay out st anding dues in t he housing loan account of lat e husband of respondent No. 1, in t erm s of insurance policy, wit hin 30 days.

2. From perusal of t he record, reveals t hat husband of respondent No. 1 ( Raj neesh Kum ar) t ook a hom e loan of Rs. 21,00,000/ - from Tat a Capit al Housing Finance Com pany Lt d. on 10.10.2018; as part of t he loan agreem ent , a “ Group Credit Secure Plus” I nsurance Policy was issued by pet it ioner t o lat e Raj neesh Kum ar t o cover t he loan am ount upon paym ent of Rs. 80,039/ - as pr em ium , including GST 1 and said insurance policy was valid from 16.10.2018 t ill

15.10.2023; Raj neesh Kum ar passed away on

25.04.2021 and his widow ( respondent no. 1) subm it t ed claim under t he I nsurance Policy, support ed by a Deat h Cert ificat e issued by a Governm ent Doct or, in which cause of deat h was m ent ioned as cardiac arrest ; pet it ioner, however, repudiat ed t he claim on t he ground t hat deat h was caused by Coronavirus, t herefore, t he case is not covered under t he policy; respondent approached Perm anent Lok Adalat by filing applicat ion; Perm anent Lok Adalat m ade effort conciliat ion, since part ies failed t o reach a set t lem ent , t herefore, learned Perm anent Lok Adalat proceeded t o adj udicat e t he disput e on m erit s and aft er considering t he m at erial on record, allowed t he claim m ade by t he respondent No. 1 by t he im pugned j udgm ent .

3. Record reveals t hat Tat a Capit al Housing Finance Com pany Lt d. has init iat ed proceedings under Securit isat ion and Reconst ruct ion of Financial Asset s and Enforcem ent of Securit y I nt erest Act , 2002 ( SARFAESI Act , 2002) for recovery of out st anding dues in t he hom e loan account of lat e Raj neesh Kum ar.

4. I n her applicat ion filed under Sect ion 22C- 1 of Legal Services Aut horit ies Act , 1987, respondent No. 1 st at ed t hat Tat a Capit al Housing Finance Com pany Lt d. got life of her husband ( lat e Raj neesh Kum ar) insured, by Tat a AI G General I nsurance Com pany Lt d., while sanct ioning loan and t he insurance cover was valid t ill

15.10.2023; her husband died of heart failure and inform at ion regarding his deat h was given t o t he insurer as well as t he lender inst it ut ion wit hin t im e. 2

5. I n it s writ t en st at em ent , pet it ioner adm it t ed t hat insurance policy was valid t ill 15.10.2023 and st at ed t hat burden of proving deat h by heart failure is upon respondent no. 1. I n para 9 of t he writ t en st at em ent , pet it ioner st at ed t hat com m ent s are not needed regarding j urisdict ion of Perm anent Lok Adalat t o adj udicat e t he disput e.

6. Pet it ioner defended repudiat ion of claim on t he ground t hat respondent no. 1 failed t o produce relevant docum ent s regarding t reat m ent of her husband; her husband died of Coronavirus, which is not covered under t he policy and aut opsy of his body was not done.

7. Respondent no. 1 cont ended t hat cause of deat h is corroborat ed by Deat h Cert ificat e issued Governm ent Doct or; her husband died before reaching Hospit al and t he Doct ors in Sub Dist rict Hospit al, Roorkee declared him “ brought dead”, t herefore, no t reat m ent could be given t o him ; sam ple Coronavirus was given by her husband for t est ing on

15.04.2021, it s report cam e on 17.04.2021, while deat h occurred on 25.04.2021, i.e. 11 t h day aft er giving sam ple for t est ing.

8. Learned Perm anent Lok Adalat held t hat since husband of respondent No. 1 died before reaching hospit al, t herefore insist ence by pet it ioner on bed head t icket and ot her docum ent s regarding t reat m ent is not j ust ified.

9. I t was furt her held t hat burden was upon t he pet it ioner t o adduce evidence t o show t hat respondent 3 No. 1 furnished incorrect inform at ion for claim ing benefit of insurance policy but pet it ioner was unable t o produce any m at erial / evidence in t his regard.

10. I t was furt her held t hat pet it ioner could not bring on record any m at erial t o prove t hat deat h of t he insured was not caused by heart at t ack but due t o Coronavirus.

11. Judgm ent rendered by learned Perm anent Lok Adalat does not call for any int erference under Art icle 227 of Const it ut ion. Merely because husband of respondent No. 1 was t est ed as COVI D- 19 posit ive on

17.04.2021, based on sam ple collect ed on 15.04.2021, is not sufficient t o infer t hat he died of Coronavirus. Moreover, respondent no. 1 herself had given inform at ion about t he report dat ed 17.04.2021 t o t he pet it ioner.

12. Respondent No. 1 in her deposit ion had st at ed t hat her husband com plained of chest pain and Anuj Kum ar Tyagi ( PW- 2) t ook him t o t he Governm ent hospit al where he was declared “ brought dead”. The t est im ony of respondent no. 1 could not be discredit ed by t he pet it ioner. I n t he invest igat ion report relied upon by pet it ioner also, cause of deat h is indicat ed as cardiac arrest , alt hough reference t o Coronavirus is also m ade in t he report . Deat h occurred aft er m ore t han 2 years and 6 m ont hs of t aking insurance policy and it is not t he case of pet it ioner t hat t he insured suppressed inform at ion about his ailm ent / m edical condit ion. Respondent no. 1 also cannot be blam ed suppression of fact or for supplying m isleading inform at ion. 4

13. Learned counsel for pet it ioner cont ended t hat learned Perm anent Lok Adalat erred in relying upon t he deat h cert ificat e, in which cause of deat h was m ent ioned as heart failure wit hout t here being aut opsy report t o corroborat e st at em ent m ade in deat h cert ificat e.

14. We do not find any force in t he said cont ent ion. The st and of respondent no. 1 t hroughout was t hat her husband had experienced chest pain and while he was t aken t o Governm ent Hospit al, he died and doct ors t he Governm ent Hospit al declared him “ brought dead” and in t he Deat h Cert ificat e, which was issued, cause of deat h was m ent ioned as ‘heart failure’. Thus, t he burden was upon pet it ioner t o show t hat deat h was not caused due t o heart failure, but due t o som e ot her disease / ailm ent . Pet it ioner, however, was not able t o discharge t his burden. He was not able t o produce any evidence t o rebut or dislodge t he cause of deat h shown t he Deat h Cert ificat e relied by respondent no. 1

15. Since pet it ioner was not able t o adduce any bet t er evidence, t herefore, learned Perm anent Lok Adalat was j ust ified in relying on t he Deat h Cert ificat e issued by a Governm ent doct or. I n fact , t here was no m at erial on record t o creat e a doubt about Deat h Cert ificat e or discredit t he st at em ent m ade in t he Deat h Cert ificat e, relied upon by t he respondent no. 1. A doct or serving in a Governm ent Hospit al, who issued t he deat h cert ificat e is an expert . The opinion expressed by an expert , t hough rebut t able, cannot be disbelieved in t he absence of bet t er evidence produced by pet it ioner. 5 Pet it ioner did not adduce any evidence in rebut t al of t he st at em ent m ade by respondent no. 1 in her deposit ion t hat her husband suffered chest pain before his deat h. The deat h cert ificat e also corroborat es t hat insured died of heart at t ack. Thus, t he ground t aken by pet it ioner for repudiat ing t he claim of respondent no. 1 was right ly held t o be unsust ainable.

16. Thus t here is no scope for int erference wit h t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Perm anent Lok Adalat while exercising supervisory powers under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion.

17. The Writ Pet it ion fails and is dism issed. ________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. Dt : 19.06.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f48 7df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819D A875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 6