Dismissed

Rupa Rai v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Sept 2024WP(C)/10448/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition seeking insurance amount under Odisha Aam Admi Bima Yojana, holding that the policy had expired prior to the beneficiary's death and refusing to entertain the plea.

What did the court decide?

None; Writ Petition dismissed with no insurance amount granted due to policy expiry.

What the court decided

Rupa Rai Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 10448 of 2024

¶3

Rupa Rai

¶4

..…... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Jusdhistir Sahoo, Adv.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors. ………. Opposite Parties Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

04.09.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks for payment of insurance amount of Rs.30,000/- under the Scheme of Odisha Aam Admi Bima Yojana (O-AABY), as her deceased husband’s name was included in the Scheme.

¶17

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was covered under Odisha Aam Admi Bima Yojana Scheme lunched by signing of MoU between National Rural Livelihoods Mission under the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Odisha and the LIC of

¶18

India. Under such Scheme, the beneficiaries are insured for Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed providing a life and disability coverage. On death and permanent Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa Cuttackdisabi lity due to accident, the family would get Rs.75,000/- in case Date: 06-Sep-2024 10:32:14

¶20

¶21

of partial disability due to accident and the insurance cover would be Rs.37,5000/-, on natural death, the family would get Rs.30,000/-.

¶22

In the present case, the husband of the Petitioner was a daily labourer under MGNREG Scheme being an insured beneficiary under the Odisha Aam Admi Bima Yojana vide Policy No.36000 and LIC ID No.174947 died on 15.12.2016.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had approached the concerned Authority i.e. Divisional Manager, LIC of India/Opposite Party No.3 by way of claim form along with all required documents. However, the Authority has gave a deaf ear to the problem of the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.2312 of 2021 with a prayer for disbursement of the aforementioned insurance amount and this Court passed an order directing the Opposite Party No.4 /District Consumer Protection Officer-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Nayagarh to take appropriate decision within a period of one and half months from the date of communication of that order.

¶24

At this juncture, learned counsel for the State submits that the Project Director, DRDA, Nayagarh has not received the claim application of the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner was being Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMUcovered under the Aam Admi Bima Yojana (Policy No.174947) Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 06-Sep-2024 10:32:14with e ffe ct from 1^st March 2012 to 28^th February, 2013. As per OLM,

¶25

¶26

PR & DW Deptt. Government of Odisha letter No.357 dated 18.02.2013, the policy has already expired on 28.02.2013. It also revealed that the beneficiary has expired on 15.12.2016, which is much after expiry of the policy. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the Policy because of the expiry of the policy period. Accordingly, the Petitioner cannot be granted any amount as claimed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State further refers to the letter dated 29.07.2021 issued by the DRDA, Nayagarh, which confirms the said facts.

¶28

In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that, since the Policy has already expired, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.

¶29

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶30

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶31

Judge

¶32

Murmu

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 06-Sep-2024 10:32:14

Rupa Rai v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Rupa Rai v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Kumar Pati Vs State of Odisha

Paramjeet Singh Vs State of Odisha

Nakula Parida Vs State of Odisha

Abanti Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Nabakishore Malik Vs State of Odisha

M/S S.P. Associates Vs Chief Manager , Union Bank of India