JUDGMENT : SHEKHER DHAWAN, J. 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause – X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant, was dismissed. 2. Appellant-Insurance Company filed Civil Writ Petition No. 14350 of 2016 challenging the award dated 12.04.2016 (Annexure P/6) passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as “the Lok Adalat”) whereby application filed by Gurudayal and others (respondents no. 1 to 3 herein) in their capacity as Legal Representatives of Raghbir Singh (since deceased) was allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 20,08,165/- which Raghbir Singh (since deceased) had taken as loan from Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Limited (respondent no. 4 herein) for his LP Truck. The said loan was repayable in 47 instalments. Raghbir Singh (since deceased) obtained a “Safe Loan Shield” policy from the present appellant-Insurance Company for the period from 17.3.2015 to 16.03.2018 and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in case the insured person died during the period of repayment of loan instalments, the appellant Insurance company was responsible to deposit the remaining loan instalments with respondent no. 4. 3. Raghbir Singh died on 22.04.2015 and after his death it was claimed that it was the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the remaining instalments, but as they refused to do so, an application was filed before the Lok Adalat by respondents no. 1 to 3. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company pleaded before the Lok Adalat that the applicants (respondents No. 1 to3) were required to intimate the Insurance Company regarding the death of Raghbir Singh within 30 days, but no such information was supplied to the appellant and neither was any claim lodged with the Insurance Company and as such prayed that the application be dismissed. 5. The Lok Adalat accepted the application vide order dated 12.04.2016 (Annexure P/6) holding that as the appellant-Insurance Company had issued 'Safe Loan Shield' towards repayment of loan raised by Raghbir Singh (since deceased), and it was the responsibility and liability of appellant-Insurance Company to pay the remaining instalments. 6. 5. The Lok Adalat accepted the application vide order dated 12.04.2016 (Annexure P/6) holding that as the appellant-Insurance Company had issued 'Safe Loan Shield' towards repayment of loan raised by Raghbir Singh (since deceased), and it was the responsibility and liability of appellant-Insurance Company to pay the remaining instalments. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, while placing reliance upon copy of Admission and Discharge Certificate of the deceased (Insured) issued by Rajiv Gandhi State General Hospital, Alwar (Rajasthan) (Annexure A/1) contended that the deceased (Insured) was suffering from “pain abdomen and LRT Sepsis” which was not disclosed to the Insurance Company and as such, the appellant is not liable to pay the balance amount. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2009 (9) JT 82 . 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record and are of the view that the present appeal is absolutely without merit because the appellant-company had undertaken to provide insurance services to the Insured and after his death to his LRs., to make the repayment of loan under 'Safe Loan Shield'. No clause of the policy has been brought to our notice where medical condition was to be disclosed at the time of obtaining the policy. If the appellant-Insurance Company thought so, it should have been vigilant, and before acceptance of terms and conditions, should have insisted for medical examination and disclosure of all health related information of the insured. There is also nothing on record to justifiably plead that any such ailment of the kind leading to death of insured was concealed from the applicants at the time of purchase of insurance policy or that there was any violation thereof. The authority cited by learned counsel for the appellant in Satwant Kaur Sandhu's case (supra) is of no help to the appellant as the facts contained therein are quite distinguishable from the facts of the present appeal because in that case, the policy under consideration was a medi-claim policy warranting disclosure of an ailment or disease at the time of obtaining the policy. 8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal and the same stands dismissed in limine.