JUDGMENT R.S. Tripathi, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by Sechan Prasad for quashing the impugned orders dated 26.2.1999 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexures '11' and '12' to the writ petition) and also for quashing the order dated 9.2.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 repudiating the claim in respect of policy Nos. 281361268 and 281891915. Also a prayer has been made for issuing a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the assured amount of the above policies together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 4.11.1997 till the date of payment.
2. The affidavits have been exchanged by the parties. The claim of the petitioner in this petition is that his wife Meena Devi alias Usha Devi was a policyholder of the respondents during her lifetime in the form of policy Nos. 281891915, 281361268 and 281556290. According to the petitioner, policy Nos. 281891915 and 281361268 were assured to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 each in favour of Meena Devi alias Usha Devi, wife of the petitioner and the third policy No. 281556290 was for Rs. 1,00,000. In the petition it was further asserted by the petitioner that the assured Meena Devi alias Usha Devi ,was coming with her husband, i.e., the petitioner Sechan Prasad on 4.9.1997 at 8.30 p.m. on a Rajdoot motor cycle bearing No. PB 09-7041 driven by her husband and at that time a truck which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed the above motor cycle resulting in the death of Meena Devi alias Usha Devi on the spot whereas the petitioner himself suffered serious injuries and was rushed to the hospital. A report about this incident was lodged by one Ram Bharos, cousin of deceased Meena Devi alias Usha Devi on the same date at 11.10 p.m. In connection with the above policies, the petitioner had made a request for payment of the amount of the policies but when his request was not considered he has to file a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27638 of 2000 against the respondents and in that writ petition a direction was given to the respondents to dispose of his claim in respect of the above policies on account of the death of his wife Meena Devi alias Usha Devi, the assured, and ultimately the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the claim of the petitioner in respect of policy Nos. 281891915 and 281361268. Aggrieved against this, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. In short respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner denying their liability to pay on the ground that firstly the petitioner himself wrongly got insured his second wife Meena Devi alias Usha Devi without disclosing the fact that the aforesaid Meena Devi alias Usha Devi was his second wife whereas the first wife of the petitioner was alive. It was contended by the respondents that during the lifetime of his first wife, the petitioner could not marry second wife, therefore, the claim of the petitioner in respect of the policies of Meena Devi alias Usha Devi was rightly repudiated. It was also contended from the side of the respondents that the writ petition was not maintainable because the remedy available to the petitioner was to file a civil suit regarding the claim of the insurance amount. According to respondents, the material facts were concealed and correct information was not supplied at the time of completion of the proposal. They denied their liability to pay any amount to the petitioner.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for respondents. We have also gone through the record. At the first instance, it would be proper to mention here that in L.I.C. of India v. Asha Gael, 2001 ACJ 806 (SC), it has been observed by the Supreme Court that extraordinary jurisdiction in the form of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot ordinarily be exercised for enforcement of the claim under a contract of insurance and in this very ruling it has been observed that normally a civil suit is the remedy for such claims. On the basis of the above ruling, from the side of the respondents the maintainability of this petition has been challenged. It is contended from the side of the petitioner that when this writ petition was filed, similar preliminary objection was raised from the side of the respondents but this objection was not accepted. We do not find any such order of this court at the stage of admission of this writ petition and as observed in L.I.C. of India v. Kiran Sinha, 1985 ACJ 657 (SC), civil suit is the only available remedy in such matters. Therefore, it is held that this writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Now coming to the merits of the case when we go through the affidavits of the parties available on record, we find that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner's first wife was alive and during the lifetime of his first wife, the petitioner allegedly married Meena Devi alias Usha Devi and thereafter the proposal for the policies in question was completed showing Meena Devi alias Usha Devi as the wife of the petitioner. This fact of showing the deceased Meena Devi alias Usha Devi as wife in the proposal form was suppression of a material fact because actually she was not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. We have the guidelines in this regard in Mithoolal Nayak v. L.I.C. of India, AIR 1962 SC 814, wherein the conditions for the application of Section 45 of the Insurance Act have been enumerated. We have also the decision in L.I.C. of India v. G.M. Channabasamma, 1991 ACJ 303 (SC), on above point. Also in the absence of denial or proof from the side of the petitioner that Meena Devi alias Usha Devi was not his second wife married during the lifetime of his first wife, the contention of the respondents has to be accepted. Not only this, the policies taken in the name of Meena Devi alias Usha Devi are shown to have been proposed giving different names of her father. Thus from these material facts, it is clear that there was material concealment of fact from the side of the petitioner. Therefore, he is not entitled for any relief and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.