Damayanti Swain vs State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is member of a Self Help Group (SHG). Her husband stood enrolled under the Insurance Policy Scheme. He died in vehicle accident. When she claimed Rs.2 lakhs under the insurance scheme, opposite party no.2 by impugned order dated 22nd November, 2022 rejected the claim.

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. S.S Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

Mr. S.S. Mohanty submits, there should be no interference with impugned order. Petitioner did not submit relevant documents for two consecutive years. Consequently premium on the policy was not paid and it lapsed. In that period husband of petitioner died. In the circumstances, the claim was duly rejected.

He submits further, there are many other discrepancies including identity of the husband, whether Laxmidhar Swain or Laxmidhar Behera. As such, it is a fraudulent claim. Mr. Nayak replies, the police in recording the accident and his client’s husband as victim, made the mistake.

Reason given in impugned order is reproduced below.

“Examined the documents available on record along with the relevant documents which are called for from different competent authorities. It is found from the records that, the LIC ID 633777 which was given by Smt Damayanti Swain claiming the said ID belongs to her late husband but in fact the said LIC ID relates to one Sri Bhagaban Jena having member ID BLS/BLS/01663. It is also found from the records that Late Laxmidhar Swain, the husband of Smt Damayanti Swain was not an enrolled member under PMJJBY Scheme at a relevant point of time. Hence, the claim made in the representation dated 27.01.2022 of Smt Damayanti Swain as per Annexure-5 is hereby rejected.”

(emphasis Supplied)

Reason relevant for purpose of adjudication is contention in impugned order that late Laxmidhar Swain, husband of petitioner, was not enrolled member under PMJJBY scheme at a relevant point of time. The reason implies that at other times, the deceased husband was member. On query from Court Mr. S.S. Mohanty submits, the Government is to pay the premium.

Court has ascertained that there was bifurcation of the insurance policy scheme, leading to requirement of submission of documents afresh. There is no way of knowing whether the requirement was informed to petitioner, to fix her omission as fatal to her claim. As aforesaid it appears as implied from the reason given, for some time deceased husband of petitioner was a member in the scheme. Attention of Court has also been drawn to, inter alia, counter filed by opposite party no.2. Contentions in it do not appear in impugned order.

The Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 has declared the law that the order is to be looked at and not beyond, for purposes of adjudication. Impugned order by itself appears to be short on reasons. In the circumstances, it is set aside and quashed. The claim is restored to opposite party no.2, for it to be dealt with within four weeks from communication of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of.

……………………………