Insurance Company challenged an Insurance Ombudsman order awarding ex-gratia payment for lapsed policy premium. Court upheld the Ombudsman's reasonable exercise of discretion.
None granted; writ petition dismissed with direction to comply with Ombudsman award.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
WP(C).No.30134 OF 2015(N)
PETITIONER :
TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., AGED 36 YEARS, 14TH FLOOR, TOWER A, PENINSULA BUSINESS PARKSB MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 400 013, REPRESENTED BY MR. P.B. GANAPATHY, MANAGER LEGAL
BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC SRI. JITHIN SAJI ISSAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
RESPONDENTS :
1 KUNHAMMAD KUNIYIL, MOOTHALATHIL TAZHA KUNIYIL HOUSE, PO ARUR PURAMERI, VATAKARA – 673 507
2 THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, 2NDFLOOR, PULINAT BUILDING, OPP COCHIN SHIPYARD, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682 015
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :
WP(C).No.30134 OF 2015(N)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of December 2020
One of the Premier Insurance Companies in the country is before this Court challenging an order issued by the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi, directing payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- to one of its former customers, as ex-gratia payment.
WP(C).No.30134 OF 2015(N)
3
accordingly done. Much later, the first respondent moved the Insurance Ombudsman by filing a complaint under Rule 12(1)(b) read with Rule 13 of the Redressal of Public Grievance Rules, 1998 (for short,'the Rules') claiming recovery of the premium paid.
WP(C).No.30134 OF 2015(N)
4
“However, the complainant has suffered a financial loss and has to be made good at least in part to render justice. As the complainant belongs to lower strata of society, less educated and working in Gulf country as a worker, he deserves some sympathetic consideration.
In the result, an Award is passed directing the respondent insurer to pay Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) as ex-gratia under Rule-18 of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 and intimate the compliance to the office of the undersigned.”
WP(C).No.30134 OF 2015(N)
5
of India. Accordingly, I decline to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with Ext.P2.
This writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Needless to say that the direction of compliance mentioned in Ext.P2 shall be adhered to and complied with as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
WP(C).No.30134 OF 2015(N)
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE POLICY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 4/2/15 OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should interfere with the Insurance Ombudsman's order directing an ex-gratia payment for forfeiture of premium.
Whether the exercise of discretion by the Insurance Ombudsman was perverse or illegal.
TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
KUNHAMMAD KUNIYIL
THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
