WP/4627/2026 of Smt Vema Padma Vs Insurance Regulatory and Development on 16 February 2026

ORDER:

The case of the petitioneq as stated in the writ affidavit, is that she is the wife of Late Vema Venkanna, who died in an accident on 25.09.2023 when his motorcl,cle collided with a tree while he was returning after attending the death ceremony of a relative. It is stated that, on the fateful day, her husband attended the death ceremony of a relative, Gundu Nagamma, wifb of Narsaiah, and after the ceremony he began returning toward Dwarakunta Village fiom Ballabhapuram on his motorcycle bearing registration nurnber 1'S 05 EA 5508. At approximately 05:20 p.ffi., while travelling near the outskitls of Indira Nagar, he allegedly lost control of the motorcycle and collided with a tree located on the left margin of the road. As a result of the impact, he sustained severe injuries and died at the scene. It is further stated that the brother of her husband came to the scene, witnessed the aftennath of the accident, and subsequently transported the w wp_4627_2026 N8K, J deceased's borly to the mortuary at the Government Hospital. Thereafter, he approached the Police Station at Munagara and lodged a complaint requesting legal action, which led to the regisrration of FIR No. I gZl2OZ3 dated 25.09.2023 under Section 304-4 of the IpC. 1.1 I'he petitioner states that her husband had been regularly enrolled in, artd paying premiums for, the Pradhana Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana Grout: Personal Accident [nsurance Scheme through National Insurance. Since the policy was in force at the time of his accidental death in2023, she asserts that compensation under the scheme became payable to the nominee- [t is stated that initially her grandf,ather had been recorded as the nominee under the scheme; hou,ever, the grandfather subsequently passed away on 06. 11.2024. Following his death, she claims that she became the rightful cllimant as the wife of the deceased and accordingly approached the insurance authorities to pursue the claim. It is stated that she submitted applications and representations to the respondent insurance authorities, including a, formal representation dated 06. I l .2025 and another representatiorr dated 06.12.2025 seeking payment of the insurance compensatior.. However, it is alleged that the authorities have not released any amount to which she is entitled under the scheme to date, despite the passage of over 24 months and her repeated requests. l-2 It is further alleged that the respondent insurance authorities have effectivr:ly ref'used to process or accept her clainr without conducting a proper inquiry or providing any reasons, and that the respondents have not released the r:ompensation because of procedural objections related to the nomination ernd claim processing. It is also stated that the respondents alleged procr:dural deficiencies in the claim fbllowing the death of the original nominee (i.e., the grandfather). However, it is the case of the wp_4627_2026 NBK, J petitioner that these objections are unjustified because she is the widow and lawful beneficiary entitled to the compensation under the scheme' 1.3 It is also stated that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the household, and that after the accident the petitioner incurred huge expenses and had to bonow rnoney at interest fiorn various lenders- The family is now facing difficulties in meeting everyday living expenses, the educational needs of the children, and the medical needs of elderly family members. The petitioner therefore prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to pay the insurance compensation by considering her representations dated 06' I I .2025 and 06' 12'2025 ' Z. Heard Mr. Rama Kotaiah Kandala, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel representing Mr' N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General' Perused the record'

3. At the outset, the grievance in the writ petition essentially is that the husband of the petitioner died in an accident on 25.09-2023 and, during his lifetime, he had been regularly e.rolled in the Pradhana Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana Group Personal Accident lnsurance Scheme and had paid the premiums through National lnsurance. The nominee of the deceased was initially his granclfather; how'ever, the nominee also died subsequently' Therefore, the petitioneq being the widow, submitted a representation dated 06.1 I .2025 to respondents No. 3 to 6 and foltowed it up with another representation dated 06.12.2025. However, the respondents, citing procedural deficiencies in the claim subsequent to the death of the original nominee, have not been processing the petitioner's claim for payment of the insurance benefits under the Scherne' \ G

wp_4627 _2026 NBK, J 4' considering the rimited nature.of the grievance with regard to the delay caused by the rbspondents in processing the craim/representations of the petitioner' ilnd also considering that the death of the deceased occurred in2023, and k':eping in view the contention of the petitioner that she has been requestinl; respondents No. 3 to 6 for over two years to process and pay the benefits to which she is entitled under the Scherne, this court directs respondents Nc'' 3 to 6 to expeditiously process the representations dated 06' I I '2025 and 06' 12'2025 for disbursar of rhe nronetary benefits to which ffitff::t " entitled, within six weeks from rhe dare of receipt of a copy sposed o{'with the above direction. g, if any. shall stancl closed. .SDAP. PONNA KRISHNA As s ts rArv r nec rsiiiliii //TRUE COPYII

To, SECTION OFFTCER 1 lis# lflffi ,n:fl,f P,x.'ig3:x:,;g#,fi: 6:113#ffi'il i,9 i,i S3., No 3, l,x? [?J,'tr 5.? 5:fl : "?j?y. flll 8:,s:T,]ll?$,i,1fr"#y#l' t33a B N o 1 1 5/ 1, 3l:?'r:if vHff ,!.'ilt*:i,iEir,?,:",,5,3f, t5,y,"?Llf ,f, .f.f, 3llt3:l[1,,, Mumbai - 400 069. 4' IB"-:!1Till#?1il#raksha Bima Yojana ( pMSBy ), srare Bank or rndia, s' Ill?ri"r" Bank of tndia, Generar Manager Kodad, Kodad Mandar, Suryapet 6' The Branch Manager, Kodad, Kodad Mandar, suryapet District 7' 3::r:1",tffi,:#*'#',,i,of lndia, Finance and ptannins Department centrar

8. ONC CC tO S;RI RAMAKOTAIAH KANDALA, AdVOCAtE TOPUC]

9. One CC to SRt M.V SURESH, SC FOR |RDA tOpUCI 'o Ri'oio"?JESSi N'BHUJANGA RAo, DEpury solrcrroR GENERAL oF pMll . Two cD copies

5. Accordinl3ly, the writ petition is di No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pendin I I : : I I

I I I : l F-

HIGH COUIRT DATED:1 610212026 ( THES 18lt 2fl26

Aq O

* Or E WP.No.46',27 of 2026 DISPOSII{G OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOU]T COSTS ,*.4 &{- \"