( 2026:JHHC:12344 ) -1- W.P. (C) No. 3685 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3685 of 2011 Jitendra Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Panna Lal Gupta, resident of Bhagalpur Road, Dumka (At Bharti Homeo Pharmacy), P.O., P.S. & District- Dumka … Petitioner -Versus- 1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman having head office at Yogaksheman Bhawan, Jeevan Bima Marg, P.O., P.S. & District- Mumbai (Maharashtra) 2. The Senior Divisional Manager/A.A., Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office “Jeewan Prakash”, Zero Mile, Bhagalpur-813210 3. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dumka Branch Office, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & District- Dumka … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate For the LIC : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate ----- 05/28.04.2026 Heard Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-LIC. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein for direction upon the respondents to pay death accidental claim on the death of policy holder against the policy (i) No.520720118, (ii) Policy No.524369099, (iii) Policy No.52299428 (wrongly mentioned as 522904283), (iv) Policy No.521765071 and (v) Policy No.522966609, which were standing in the name of Dharmendra Kumar Gupta. 3. Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the claims have been paid pursuant to the said policies, however, double accidental death benefit with regard to two policies being Policy Nos.524369099 and 522966609 have not been paid. He submits that in view of that, appropriate direction may kindly be issued. ( 2026:JHHC:12344 ) -2- W.P. (C) No. 3685 of 2011 4. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-LIC submits that the matter was before the Insurance Ombudsman and seeing the nature of dispute, the Ombudsman has decided to wait for the outcome of criminal cases arising out of two FIRs. He further submits that in one of the FIR, the cause of death is said to be murder and in another FIR, the cause of death is said to be electric shock. He next submits that in view of that the petitioner is required to approach the authority again. 5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that even the insurance policy is not annexed with the writ petition and in such a situation, it is difficult to appreciate the contention of the petitioner. Further, two FIRs are there saying different cause of death. The Ombudsman has rightly held to wait for the outcome of the cases arising out of two FIRs. 6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to find out the outcome of the cases pending before the Court and take appropriate steps thereafter, in accordance with law. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 28th April, 2026 Ajay/