2025:UHC:5178 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1555 of 2025 19 June, 2025 Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. --Petitioner Versus Smt. Garima Arora & another --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for caveator/ respondent no. 1. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 1. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution, challenging judgment dated 05.03.2025, rendered by Permanent Lok Adalat, Haridwar in Case No. 41 of 2022. By the said judgment, application made by respondent under Section 22-C1 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was allowed; petitioner was directed to pay outstanding dues in the housing loan account of late husband of respondent No. 1, in terms of insurance policy, within 30 days. 2. From perusal of the record, it reveals that husband of respondent No. 1 (Rajneesh Kumar) took a home loan of Rs. 21,00,000/- from Tata Capital Housing Finance Company Ltd. on 10.10.2018; as part of the loan agreement, a “Group Credit Secure Plus” Insurance Policy was issued by petitioner to late Rajneesh Kumar to cover the loan amount upon payment of Rs. 80,039/- as premium, including GST 1 2025:UHC:5178 and said insurance policy was valid from 16.10.2018 till 15.10.2023; Rajneesh Kumar passed away on 25.04.2021 and his widow (respondent no. 1) submitted claim under the Insurance Policy, supported by a Death Certificate issued by a Government Doctor, in which cause of death was mentioned as cardiac arrest; petitioner, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that death was caused by Coronavirus, therefore, the case is not covered under the policy; respondent approached Permanent Lok Adalat by filing application; Permanent Lok Adalat made effort for conciliation, since parties failed to reach a settlement, therefore, learned Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to adjudicate the dispute on merits and after considering the material on record, allowed the claim made by the respondent No. 1 by the impugned judgment. 3. Record reveals that Tata Capital Housing Finance Company Ltd. has initiated proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) for recovery of outstanding dues in the home loan account of late Rajneesh Kumar. 4. In her application filed under Section 22C-1 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, respondent No. 1 stated that Tata Capital Housing Finance Company Ltd. got life of her husband (late Rajneesh Kumar) insured, by Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., while sanctioning loan and the insurance cover was valid till 15.10.2023; her husband died of heart failure and information regarding his death was given to the insurer as well as the lender institution within time. 2 2025:UHC:5178 5. In its written statement, petitioner admitted that insurance policy was valid till 15.10.2023 and stated that burden of proving death by heart failure is upon respondent no. 1. In para 9 of the written statement, petitioner stated that comments are not needed regarding jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate the dispute. 6. Petitioner defended repudiation of claim on the ground that respondent no. 1 failed to produce relevant documents regarding treatment of her husband; her husband died of Coronavirus, which is not covered under the policy and autopsy of his body was not done. 7. Respondent no. 1 contended that cause of death is corroborated by Death Certificate issued by Government Doctor; her husband died before reaching Hospital and the Doctors in Sub District Hospital, Roorkee declared him “brought dead”, therefore, no treatment could be given to him; sample for Coronavirus was given by her husband for testing on 15.04.2021, its report came on 17.04.2021, while death occurred on 25.04.2021, i.e. 11th day after giving sample for testing. 8. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat held that since husband of respondent No. 1 died before reaching hospital, therefore insistence by petitioner on bed head ticket and other documents regarding treatment is not justified. 9. It was further held that burden was upon the petitioner to adduce evidence to show that respondent 3 2025:UHC:5178 No. 1 furnished incorrect information for claiming benefit of insurance policy but petitioner was unable to produce any material / evidence in this regard. 10. It was further held that petitioner could not bring on record any material to prove that death of the insured was not caused by heart attack but due to Coronavirus. 11. Judgment rendered by learned Permanent Lok Adalat does not call for any interference under Article 227 of Constitution. Merely because husband of respondent No. 1 was tested as COVID-19 positive on 17.04.2021, based on sample collected on 15.04.2021, is not sufficient to infer that he died of Coronavirus. Moreover, respondent no. 1 herself had given information about the report dated 17.04.2021 to the petitioner. 12. Respondent No. 1 in her deposition had stated that her husband complained of chest pain and Anuj Kumar Tyagi (PW-2) took him to the Government hospital where he was declared “brought dead”. The testimony of respondent no. 1 could not be discredited by the petitioner. In the investigation report relied upon by petitioner also, cause of death is indicated as cardiac arrest, although reference to Coronavirus is also made in the report. Death occurred after more than 2 years and 6 months of taking insurance policy and it is not the case of petitioner that the insured suppressed information about his ailment/medical condition. Respondent no. 1 also cannot be blamed for suppression of fact or for supplying misleading information. 4 2025:UHC:5178 13. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that learned Permanent Lok Adalat erred in relying upon the death certificate, in which cause of death was mentioned as heart failure without there being autopsy report to corroborate statement made in death certificate. 14. We do not find any force in the said contention. The stand of respondent no. 1 throughout was that her husband had experienced chest pain and while he was being taken to Government Hospital, he died and doctors in the Government Hospital declared him “brought dead” and in the Death Certificate, which was issued, cause of death was mentioned as ‘heart failure’. Thus, the burden was upon petitioner to show that death was not caused due to heart failure, but due to some other disease / ailment. Petitioner, however, was not able to discharge this burden. He was not able to produce any evidence to rebut or dislodge the cause of death shown in the Death Certificate relied by respondent no. 1 15. Since petitioner was not able to adduce any better evidence, therefore, learned Permanent Lok Adalat was justified in relying on the Death Certificate issued by a Government doctor. In fact, there was no material on record to create a doubt about Death Certificate or discredit the statement made in the Death Certificate, relied upon by the respondent no. 1. A doctor serving in a Government Hospital, who issued the death certificate is an expert. The opinion expressed by an expert, though rebuttable, cannot be disbelieved in the absence of better evidence produced by petitioner. 5 2025:UHC:5178 Petitioner did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal of the statement made by respondent no. 1 in her deposition that her husband suffered chest pain before his death. The death certificate also corroborates that insured died of heart attack. Thus, the ground taken by petitioner for repudiating the claim of respondent no. 1 was rightly held to be unsustainable. 16. Thus there is no scope for interference with the judgment rendered by learned Permanent Lok Adalat while exercising supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. 17. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 19.06.2025 Navin 6 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.06.25 17:09:30 +05'30'