Allowed

A.Kandasamy v. The Insurance Ombudsman

Madras HC21 Nov 2019WMP/10914/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought an injunction to restrain respondents from terminating life insurance policies pending disposal of a main writ petition. The court noted the dispute regarding policy expiry and granted interim restraint contingent on the main petition's outcome.

What did the court decide?

Restraint on termination of specific Max Life insurance policies pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

A.Kandasamy Vs The Insurance Ombudsman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Special Original Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty First day of November Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

WMP No.10914 of 2018 IN WP.NO.9059 of 2018 A.KANDASAMY [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN [ RESPONDENTS ] OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, FATIMA AKHTAR COURT, 4TH FLOOR, NO.453, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI 600 018 2 M/S.AXIS BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NO.164, BUSSY STREET, PONDICHERRY 605 001

¶7

3 M/S.MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., J.K.TOWER 1ST FLOOR, 100 FEET ROAD, SARAM, PONDICHERRY 605 013

¶8

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to grant an order of injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from the terminating the policies viz., Max Life Gain Plus 20 bearing policy numbers 869382853, 877871871 in favour of the petitioner and Policy NO.868861774 issued by the 3rd respondent, (in WMP.No.10914/2018) pending disposal of the WP.No.9059/2018.

¶9

Order :This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.D.RAVICHANDER, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. M.B. RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE for 1^st Respondent and of Mr.V.V.SIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE for 2^nd Respondents and of MR.M.G. PRANAVACHARAN, ADVOCATE for 3^rd Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶10

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Policies, viz., Max Life Gain Plus 20 bearing Nos. 869382853, 868861774 and 877871871 would be expiring shortly, but Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Insurance asserts that the Policies have already expired. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

As the expiry of the contract is disputed, any termination of contract shall be subject to the result of this Writ Petition, which shall be mentioned in all proceedings in that regard.

¶12

-sd/-
21/11/2019
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. )
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN
OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN,
FATIMA AKHTAR COURT, 4TH FLOOR,
NO.453, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET,
CHENNAI 600 018
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
M/S.AXIS BANK LTD., NO.164,
BUSSY STREET, PONDICHERRY 605 001
3 M/S.MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
J.K.TOWER 1ST FLOOR, 100 FEET ROAD,
SARAM, PONDICHERRY 605 013
C.C. to M/S.D.RAVICHANDER Advocate, SR.NO.13929
The Government Advocate, High Court, Madras - 104.
Order
in
WMP.10914/2018
in
WP.NO.9059/2018
Date :21/11/2019
From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the Interim Orders in this format
SM/16/12/2019

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Kandasamy v. The Insurance Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kandasamy v. The Insurance Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Muthusamy Vs Union of India

Jawahar Vs Union of India

Umamaheswari Murugesan Vs Union of india

M.Mohamed Dawood Vs The Chairman

M.Abdul Rahim Vs The Chairman

M/s.Jai Mahavir Textiles Vs The Manager