Dismissed

Sengutuvan, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC7 Dec 2022WP(MD)/2304/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that a writ petition challenging an insurance claim rejection was not maintainable under Article 226 as it involved a contractual dispute. The petition was dismissed, but the pendency period was excluded for future civil proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The period of pendency prior to this order is excluded for filing appropriate civil proceedings.

Sengutuvan, Vs the Managing Director — Insurance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2304 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2304 of 2012 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012

Sengutuvan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director, Star Health & Allied Insurance Co Ltd., Old No.64A, New No.2A, Ganga Nagar Road, (Opp to BSNL Office), Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶11

2.The Deputy Manager (Accounts), Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Madurai Region. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call the impugned order of the 1^st respondent dated 23.09.2011 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to disburse the amount as per the certificate given by the Apollo Medical Hospital authorities.

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P(MD)No.2304 of 2012

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sekar for Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For R2 : Mr.G.Mohan Kumar

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the 1^st respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner to disburse the amount under the medical insurance scheme.

¶19

At the outset, the writ petition as against the 1^st respondent is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor it owes a

¶20

public duty. The claim is pursuant to a contract entered between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent, implementation of which could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

The writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be

¶22

dismissed. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been agitating before the wrong forum, the period of pendency that is from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of this order, shall be

¶23

2/4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P(MD)No.2304 of 2012

¶26

excluded, if the petitioner seeks to file appropriate civil proceedings as

¶27

advised and the same shall not be rejected on the ground of delay.

¶28

In view of the above said facts, this Writ Petition stands

¶29

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

07.12.2022

¶31

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gbg

¶32

3/4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P(MD)No.2304 of 2012

¶35

K.KUMARESH BABU,J.

¶36

gbg

¶37

Order made in W.P(MD)No.2304 of 2012

¶38

Dated: 07.12.2022

¶39

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sengutuvan, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sengutuvan, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Muthuselvi, Vs the Registrar of

Madhanaperumal, Vs the Zonal Manager

Maathooran, S/O Kalasalingam, Vs the District Collector

Mrs. Kursheed Sharfudeen, Vs the Commissioner

K.Muthukarakkal, Vs the District Revenue Officer