Dismissed

Gajinder Kaur v. Insurance Ombudsman & Ors.

Delhi HC23 May 2016W.P.(C)/4695/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Netw. order. The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Insurance Ombudsman's order rejecting a refund claim for an insurance premium. The court held that the petitioner invoked remedies only after the limitation period expired. The petitioner cited oral representation but no written evidence was on record, leading to dismissal on merits regarding the lawyer. The judgment focus

What the court decided

AI extract

Gajinder Kaur Vs Insurance Ombudsman & Ors. — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4695/2016 & C.M.No.19570/2016

¶4

GAJINDER KAUR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr.Tanmay Mehta with Ms.Swati Gupta, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN & ORS ..... Respondents Through None

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 23.05.2016

¶11

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28^th October, 2015 whereby the respondent no. 1 has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner against the insurance company seeking refund of the premium amount paid by her towards her insurance policy.

¶12

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner took a policy from respondent no. 3 on 10^th July, 2009 and paid a premium of Rs. 10 lacs. Thereafter the petitioner stopped paying the premium amount and informed the respondent no. 3 that she wanted to opt out of the policy.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 did not refund her the amount that had been deposited by her towards the first premium.

¶14

Admittedly, the forfeiture took place in the year 2010 as no premium was paid after 10^th July, 2009 and the first written

¶15

representation/objection had been filed by the petitioner only in the year 2014.

¶16

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the legal notice dated 26^th November, 2014 in which it is stated that since the date of surrender of the policy i.e. 10^th July, 2010, various communications and representations were made by the petitioner. However, in the said notice, there is no averment that the said communications and representations were oral. No written communication or representation has been placed on record. Consequently, the contention of the petitioner does not impress this Court.

¶17

This Court is, therefore, of the view that the petitioner invoked her remedies only after the period of limitation had expired.

¶18

Consequently, the present writ petition and the application are dismissed.

¶19

MANMOHAN, J

¶20

MAY 23, 2016 KA

Gajinder Kaur v. Insurance Ombudsman & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gajinder Kaur v. Insurance Ombudsman & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jay Dee Exports Vs Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

Dileep Wangoo & Ors. Vs Insurance Authority & Ors.

Jay Iron and Steels Ltd. Vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India

Harkrishan Das Nijhawan Vs Regional Passport Office Delhi & Ors.

Valley Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

Hlpl Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs (General)

Shikha Seth Vs Directorate of Education & Ors.

Jay Iron and Steels Ltd. Vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency & Anr.

Krishna Kalra and Anr. Vs Public Grievance Commission, Govt. of NCT Delhi

Ashish Kumar Dwivedi Vs Central Board of Film Certification

Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Service and Research Institute on Family and Children (Serfac) Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University

Nadeem Babar Siddique Vs University of Delhi