ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-corporation being aggrieved with the order dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below'), whereby the court below has accepted the application filed by the respondent No. 2 Rajeshwari Devi under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1987') and directed the petitioners-corporation to pay the insurance claim of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2 within a period of 45 days along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application. The court below has also directed the petitioners-corporation to pay Rs.25,000/- to the respondent No. 2 in lieu of litigation cost and mental harassment caused to her. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 before the court below while stating that her husband late Labhchand Bhanbhu was employed as Junior Engineer in the Public Health and Engineering Department. She further stated that her husband has submitted a proposal form for his life insurance before the petitioners-corporation on 30.05.2006 and a life insurance policy bearing No. 501756198 was issued by the petitioners-corporation, whereby a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was assured under the said policy. The respondent No. 2 was made nominee in the said policy, which was to be matured at 28.04.2028 and half yearly premium for the said policy was Rs.7642/-. It was claimed that Labhchand Bhanbhu suddenly died on 18.05.2008 at his residence and the respondent No. 2 applied for insurance claim as per the above policy with the petitioners-corporation, however, the petitioners-corporation refused to pay the insurance claim vide communication dated 27.01.2009 while stating that late Labhchand Bhanbhu has not disclosed about his disease in his proposal form dated 15.05.2006 and, therefore, the insurance claim is rejected. 3. The court below has observed that it was the duty of the petitioners-corporation that before issuance of policy in favour of late Labhchand Bhanbhu, they should get him medically examined. The court below has also observed that the petitioners-corporation has not produced any evidence to the effect that before issuance of policy in favour of late Labhchand Bhanbhu, the petitioners-corporation has conducted his medical checkup. The court below has also observed that the petitioners-corporation has not produced any evidence to the effect that before issuance of policy in favour of late Labhchand Bhanbhu, the petitioners-corporation has conducted his medical checkup. The court below has held that the petitioners-corporation, only with the intention to hide its negligence, is blaming the insured person for not producing information regarding his disease in the proposal form and the petitioners-corporation cannot escaped from its liability. 4. Assailing the impugned order passed by the court below, learned counsel for the petitioners-corporation has argued that the court below has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits and it can only pass order on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. It is contended that in the present case, the court below has decided the claim on merits and, therefore, on this ground alone the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5. It is also contended that the court below has committed serious error in not taking into consideration that the petitioners-corporation is not under any obligation to prove any fact regarding the disease of the insured person and it is for the claimant to prove that insured person had not concealed any information in his proposal form regarding his health. It is submitted that the court below has not taken into consideration the fact that late Labhchand Bhanbhu has furnished wrong information in his proposal form and has not stated about his ailments and disease and, therefore, the insurance claim preferred by the respondent No. 2 has rightly been rejected. 6. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners-corporation has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors. reported in 2008 (2) CT (SC) 414 and the decision of this Court rendered in Popular Carriers v. The Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat & Ors. reported in 2008 (2) CT (Raj.) 955. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners-corporation to the effect that the court below cannot decide any dispute on merit is devoid of any force. Sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 provides that where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute. Sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 provides that where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute. In the present case, a specific finding is given by the court below to the effect that conciliation proceedings were conducted, but the same could not be succeeded. Once the conciliation proceedings were conducted by the court below but failed, then the court below has jurisdiction to decide the claim on merit. 8. In the case of State of Punjab (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing a case wherein the High Court in a Lok Adalat has proceeded to decide the motor accidents claim case on merits. In the present case, the dispute between the parties was adjudicated by the Permanent Lok Adalat as per sub-section (8) of Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 and not in a routine Lok Adalat. 9. In the case of Popular Carriers (supra), this Court has held that before deciding a dispute on merit, the Permanent Lok Adalat should have conducted the conciliation proceedings and in the absences of same it cannot decide the dispute on merits. In the present case, as observed earlier, the court below has specifically observed that the conciliation proceedings were conducted but failed and, therefore, it has decided the dispute between the parties on merits. 10. As such the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioners-corporation are of no help to him. 11. Even on merits, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners-corporation to the effect that the husband of the respondent No. 2 has not disclosed, concealed or furnished wrong information in his proposal form regarding his health. Before the court below, the petitioners-corporation had contended that the husband of the respondent No. 2 was anemic, suffering from back pain and fever and remained under treatment from 17.04.2006 to 26.06.2007 on various occasions, and has not disclosed the said facts in his proposal form. 12. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners-corporation has placed reliance on certain medical certificates, which have been furnished by the husband of the respondent No. 2 in his employer department i.e. PHED for medical leave. 13. 12. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners-corporation has placed reliance on certain medical certificates, which have been furnished by the husband of the respondent No. 2 in his employer department i.e. PHED for medical leave. 13. It is interesting to note that in the said medical certificates (Annexures-3, 4, 6 and 8), the doctor has certified that the husband of the respondent No. 2 is free from anemia, back pain and fever and at present is fit to resume his duties. 14. Moreover, so called disease such as anemia, back pain and fever are common ailments and cannot be said to be a disease having serious consequences. The husband of the respondent No. 2 might have submitted those medical certificates in his employer department seeking medical leave, but, the said documents cannot be made basis for refusing the claim of the insurance policy. 15. It is not the case of the petitioners-corporation that the husband of the respondent No. 2 died on account of so called diseases. In the opinion of this Court, the anemia, back pain and fever are very common ailments and non-disclosures of such ailments is of no consequences. 16. There is no evidence available on record that the husband of the respondent No. 2 was suffering from serious disease such as Diabetes, Tuberculosis, High and Low Blood Pressure, Cancer, Epilepsy, Hernia, Hydrocele, Leprosy etc., description of which given in the proposal form. 17. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the petitioners-corporation has grossly erred in refusing to pay the insurance claim to the respondent No. 2 in lieu of the insurance policy of her husband and the court below has rightly allowed her insurance claim vide impugned order. 18. Resultantly, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.