Dismissed¶52

The Director Services and Business Development v. Mariya. R

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2025WP/6546/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Covid-19 health insurance claim; major medical illness coverage; ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.; NCDRC First Appeal No. 616/2024 dismissed for delay (119 days reported / 109 days admitted); State Commission consumer order; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, GM-CON; remand to National Commission refused as futile; premium Rs. 1,40,872/- (27.10.2016 to 26.10.2021); insured hospitalised 07.05.2021, died 11.05.2021 of Covid-19 Pneumonia; Karnataka HC Division Bench, order per D K Singh J., 17.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Covid-19, the disease from which the husband of respondent No. 1 died, is a major medical illness. ¶44

The Director Services and Business Development Vs… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether, despite the impugned dismissal of the insurer's first appeal on grounds of delay, the matter should be remanded back to the National Commission for consideration on merit. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

On merits, the State Commission committed no error of law in interpreting the policy; finding no merit in the petitioner-Company's case, the court held that remand to the National Commission would be a futile exercise and dismissed the writ petition.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

Covid-19, the disease from which the husband of respondent No. 1 died, is a major medical illness.

¶44

Key takeaways

The medical insurance policy issued to the late husband of respondent No. 1 covers Covid-19.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: D K Singh and Rajesh Rai K, JJ.; order per D K Singh, J.) dated 17.10.2025 in W.P. No. 6546 of 2025 (GM-CON) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: DISMISSED. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. impugned the order dated 13.09.2024 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 616/2024, whereby the insurer's appeal was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay of 119 days as reported and admitted delay of 109 days. The Bench tested the merits to decide whether remand to the National Commission was warranted. On the insurer's sole merit contention that the deceased husband of respondent No. 1's medical insurance policy would not cover Covid-19, the Court held that Covid-19 — which caused the insured's death after hospitalisation on 07.05.2021 with Covid-19 Pneumonia and death on 11.05.2021 (total premium paid 27.10.2016 to 26.10.2021: Rs. 1,40,872/-) — is a major medical illness covered by the policy. Finding that the State Commission committed no error of law in interpreting the policy and that remand would be a futile exercise, the writ petition was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41612-DB WP No. 6546 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 6546 OF 2025 (GM-CON)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE DIRECTOR SERVICES & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

¶13

THE NATIONAL MANAGER OPERATIONS

¶14

THE CORPORATE MANAGER SERVICE QUALITY

¶15

THE MANAGER SERVICE QUALITY

¶16

1 TO 4 ARE REP.BY

¶17

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.414, VEER SAVARKAR MAR, SIDDHI VINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-40025, MAHARASHTRA NOW REP. BY THE THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 9TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE 121, DICKENSON ROAD, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

MARIYA. R W/O LATE AZHAR NADEEM

¶23

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41612-DB WP No. 6546 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

R/O 42263, TYPE K. PRESTIGE FALCON CITY, KANAKAPURA ROAD, ANJANADRI LAYOUT, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU-560062, KARNATAKA

¶26

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ICICI BANK LIMITED, REGD. OFFICE LAND MARK, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA-390 007

¶27

THE CREDIT MANAGER, ICICI BANK LIMITED

¶28

THE SALES MANAGER, ICICI BANK LIMITED, OFFICE OF R3 & R4: NO.5, RG CHAMBERS, 3RD FLOOR, 7^TH BLOCK, 80 FT. ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. LETHIF B, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. JAI M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANEXURE-F DATED 13.09.2024 PASSED BY NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , NEW DELHI IN FIRST APPEAL No. 616/2024.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:41612-DB WP No. 6546 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶39

The present Writ Petition has been filed impugning the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in First Appeal No.616/2024.

¶40

The National Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/Insurance Company on the ground of inordinate delay of 119 days as reported and admitted delay of 109 days. In order to examine the impugned order, we also tested the merits of the matter to find out whether the matter should be remanded back to the National Commission for consideration on merit or not.

¶41

The only contention on merit advanced by Mr. A.N. Krishnaswamy, is that medical insurance policy of the deceased husband of the respondent would not cover the illness/deceased/Covid-19. The total premium paid for the medical policy from 27.10.2016 to mid night of 26.10.2021 was Rs.1,40,872/-. The policy covers major medical illness and also procedure which have enumerated. The pandemic Covid-19

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41612-DB WP No. 6546 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

cannot be said that it was not a major medical illness. As the husband of the respondent died because of Covid-19 which we consider as a major medical illness, we are of the opinion that the medical insurance policy issued to the late husband of the respondent would cover the said disease.

¶45

The State Commission in paragraph No.9 of the

¶46

order has held as under:

¶47

"9. Now, coming to the case of the deceased insured, initially he suffered from fever, breathlessness and cough, when it has become severe, doctors advised for hospitalisation. In this regard, if we looked into medical records/Ex-14 inkpage.119 to 140, we could see, he has admitted to hospital on 07.05.2021, wherein he was diagnosed as fever, breathlessness, cough and Covid-19 Pneumonia and he was treated with all due medical care that known to the medical field during the period of pandemic, even when there is no specific line treatment. Despite, such efforts by the doctors, his respiratory got failed and finally, could not save the patient and declared dead on 11.05.2021. He was suffering from Covid-19 since 05.05.2021 and despite seven days of medical treatment, the corona virus (Covid-19) developed very quickly and as a result his respiratory got failed, and hence he could not recover from such disease."

¶48

Therefore, on merits also, we do not find that the

¶49

State Commission has committed any error of law in

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41612-DB WP No. 6546 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

interpreting the policy. As we find no merit in the case of the petitioner-Company and it would be futile exercise to remand the matter back to the National Commission. Thus, we dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶53

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if ay, shall stand disposed of.

¶54

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶55

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶56

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

The Director Services and Business Development v. Mariya. R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director Services and Business Development v. Mariya. R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Ramaiah, Vs the Managing Director

Kannan. N Vs the Managing Director

Sri T H Manjunath Vs Sri G N Malleshappa

Sri Puthige Mutt Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rukkamma Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri. Suresh. M