[2025:RJ-JP:27345] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 636/2004 Smt Manohar Kanwar wife of late Shri Mitracharan Singh, Sub Inspector, R/o Village Sanchayi Post- Jhasadi, Tehsil Pratapgarh, District Chhitorgarh (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Director General Of Police, Govt of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. The Superintendent of Police, Banswara (Rajasthan) 3. The Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, Jyoti Nagar, Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 22/07/2025 1. None appears for petitioner. 2. Heard counsel for respondents and perused the pleadings so also the documents, placed on record. 3. Petitioner, being widow of Sh. Mitracharan Singh, a Sub- Inspector, is claiming payment under the Group Insurance Policy, on account of death of her husband on 06.02.2003. 4. Petitioner came up with a case that her husband met with an accident, got head injury and died during his treatment at Community Health Center, Gathol, District Banswara, hence, as per Group Insurance Policy, the insured amount is liable to be paid to her. [2025:RJ-JP:27345] (2 of 2) [CW-636/2004] 5. The claim of petitioner has been repudiated by respondents stating inter alia that there is no document to certify the death of petitioner’s husband as accidental death. As per respondent, the cause of action of death of petitioner’s husband, is Acute M.I. (Myocarded Infarction). Further, it has been submitted that neither there is any FIR nor post mortem report of deceased, which support the factum of accident. 6. Indisputably, the Group Insurance Policy covers only accidental death. The factum of accident of petitioner’s husband is a disputed fact. No authentic document has been placed on record, to prove that petitioner’s husband met with an accident and died due to that reason. Mere averments to that effect in the death certificate is not suffice. 7. Counsel for respondent- State submits that retiral benefits, family pension etc. have already been released to the petitioner. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in case of petitioner to claim insured amount under the Group Insurance Policy, which operates only in accidental death cases. 9. As a result, instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/17