Court disposed of the PIL as withdrawn, directing the petitioners to file a comprehensive petition with all insurers as parties. No opinion on merits was expressed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SKC
2-PIL-64-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 64 OF 2017
Latika Batra & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
Ms Preeti Shah with A. S. Pal for Petitioners.
Mr. Shrinivas Bhave with S. Gokhale and Gaurav Yadav i/b. M/s. Bhave & Co. for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Kersi Dastoor i/b. Phoenix Legal for Respondent No. 3.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 10 NOVEMBER 2017
P.C.:
1] The petition is filed mainly espousing the cause of five policy holders whose details are furnished in the petition at page no. 6 paragraph 7 of the petition. The grievance is that the premium paid by them in 2012 is enhanced by twice or thrice in 2017 without any rhyme or reason. According to them, they approached IRDA with representations but was of no use. Therefore, they are before this Court.
2] We pointed out to the petitioners that against one nationalized insurance company alone the case of five individuals is brought on record to plead same fate so far as other medical insurance policy holders under the same company. We also informed the Advocate that if the petitioners intend to fight cause as a pro bono publico then all other similar insurance companies should follow the directions of IRDA must be made parties and some materials substantiating the issue has
1 of 2
SKC
SKC
2-PIL-64-17
to be brought on record otherwise it would become individual case of five policy holders who become the foundation to file this public interest litigation. At this stage, petitioners counsel seek permission to withdraw and file fresh petition with all the details.
3] Accordingly, petition is disposed of as withdrawn reserving liberty to file a comprehensive petition as indicated above. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
CHIEF JUSTICE
2 of 2
SKC
Latika Batra
Union of India
Dr. Manjula Chellur
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
