Shri Niren Chandra Talukdar Vs Insurance Regulatory… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

Shri Niren Chandra Talukdar Vs Insurance Regulatory… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; dismissal expressly without prejudice to the petitioner approaching the Ombudsmen, with any delay-condonation application to be considered by the Ombudsman in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is entertainable where the dispute over closure of the petitioner's insurance claim can be raised before the Ombudsmen, an effective alternate remedy specially created for adjudication of such disputes. +1 more

Court's answer

The dispute raised in the petition can be very well raised before the Ombudsmen, which is specially created for adjudication of such disputes.

Ratio / Principle

The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being extraordinary in nature (whereby only prerogative writs are to be issued), for matters of the present nature a writ petition would not be entertainable.

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands dismissed.ratio¶34
Dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the petitioner to approach the Ombudsmen in accordance with law.ratio¶35
If there is any delay in approaching the Ombudsmen and an application explaining the same is filed, the learned Ombudsmen may consider such application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/3500/2026, decided on 13.07.2026 by Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. The petitioner's insurance claim was closed by respondent nos. 2 & 3 (SBI General Insurance) vide communication dated 03.01.2022 for non-signing of a discharge voucher; counsel relied on certain directions of the IRDAI. The Court noted that the dispute can be raised before the Ombudsmen, specially created for adjudication of such disputes, and held that Article 226 jurisdiction being extraordinary, a writ petition would not be entertainable for matters of the present nature, relying on the principles laid down in M/S Radha Krishan Industries Vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, (2021) 6 SCC 771 (alternate remedy rule and its exceptions). The writ petition was dismissed; the dismissal was stated not to bar the petitioner from approaching the Ombudsmen, and the Court directed that any delay-condonation application filed with the Ombudsman may be considered by it in accordance with law.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010129052026

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/3500/2026

SHRI NIREN CHANDRA TALUKDAR

SON OF LATE AMBIKA CHARAN TALUKDAR, RESIDENT OF SILCHAR TOWN, HOUSE NO L-1, NATARAJ BHAWAN MATRISHREE LANE, CHENGCOORIE ROAD, P.O.- SILCHAR, P. S. SILCHAR (SADAR), DISTRICTCACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788004

VERSUS

INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, SY NO. 115/1, FINANCIAL DISTRICT, NANAKRAMGUDA, GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD - 500032

2:SBI GENERAL INSURANCE REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR/CEO COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATE AND REGISTERED OFFICE 9TH FLOOR A AND B WING FULCRUM BUILDING SAHAR ROAD ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI 400099. MAHARASHTRA INDIA.

3:BRANCH MANAGER SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 2ND FLOOR FOOD AND FLAVORS BUILDING (HOSPITAL ROAD-AMBICAPATTY TRI JUNCTION) P. O. SILCHAR P. S. SICHAR (SADAR) DIST-CACHAR

Page No.# 2/4

PIN-788004

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. NOOR KUTUB ALAM, MR C GOGOI

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

ORDER

13.07.2026

Heard Shri C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the action of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 whereby the insurance claim of the petitioner was closed vide a communication dated 03.01.2022. The reason for such closure was non signing of a discharge voucher. The learned counsel has relied upon certain directions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India whereby such action is not permitted in law.

2. This Court has however noted that the dispute raised in this petition can be very well raised before the Ombudsmen which is specially created for adjudication of such disputes.

3. This Court is also of the opinion that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being extra ordinary in nature whereby only prerogative writs are to be issued, for matters of the present nature, a writ petition would not be entertainable.

4. The aspect of exercise of jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 226 has been discussed and deliberated in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of M/S Radha Krishan Industries Vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771, after considering the relevant case laws, the following principles have been broadly laid down:

Page No.# 3/4

“27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;

27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;

27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where

(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;

(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;

(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or

(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;

27.4 An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;

27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.”

5. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

6. Dismissal of this writ petition however shall not be a bar for the petitioner

Page No.# 4/4

to approach the Ombudsmen in accordance with law.

7. At this stage, the learned counsel has also made a prayer that delay if any in approaching the Ombudsmen may be directed to be condoned. This Court accordingly directs that if there is any delay and an application is filed explaining the same, the learned Ombudsmen may consider such application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant