Allowed

Ravuri Raghuram v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Telangana HC13 Jun 2023WP/11704/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition by relying on a previous judgment, holding that the Insurance Ombudsman acts as an arbitrator/tribunal under Rule 17, thus requiring legal representation. The contentions on the core merits of the policy dispute are kept open.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed; the petitioner is permitted representation by an advocate. Miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

Ravuri Raghuram Vs Life Insurance Corporation of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹¹ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11704 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ravuri Raghuram, S/o. Ravuri Venkateshwarlu, aged about 50 years, Rl/o. Fremont CA, Unites States of America, Rep. by his GPA holder and Nominee Mr. Ravuri Venkateshwarlu Sio. Ravuri Bhadriah, R/o. H.No.l2-13-4851511 and 2, Street No.14, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony, Behind I I C T Office, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, Telangana - 500017.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, A statutory Corporation, Having its central offie at Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia,^{'Yogakshema',} Jeevan Bima Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai 40002. Having its branch office at H.No.1-3-'104, LIC of lndia, Kazipet Satellite Branch, Besides Bhavani Theatre, Kazipet, Telangana - 506003.

¶12

The lnsurance Ombudsman, Constituted by Govt. of lndia, For the State of Telangana, Off . 6-2-46,1st Floor, Moin Court Lane Opp. Saleem Function Hall Palace, A.C. Guards, Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶13

Union of lndia, Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Finance New Delhi, lndia.

¶14

lnsurance Regulatory and Development Authority of lndia, Having its head office at Sy No.¹ 15/'l , Financial District, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500032

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order, or direction; one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring A. Rule 14(1 ) of the lnsurance Ombudsman Rules, 20'17 as being ultra vires of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 B. the letter dated 2710812021 and the consequent letters daled 2810912021 and 0511012021 issued by the Respondent No. 1, increasing the premium rates and collecting arrears on 16 insurance policies vide Policy Nos.

¶17

698985762 to 698985777 as being ittegal, contrary to provisions of the lnsurance Act, 1938 and lndian Contract Act, 1872 and C. consequenfly, direct the Respondent No. 1 to receive and process installment premium towards j 6 life insurance policies vide Policy Nos. 698985762 to 698985777 at the premium rates mentioned in the policies D. consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to permit the Petitioner to be represented by an advocate.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to receive and process installment premium towards 16 life insurance policies vide Policy Nos. 698985762 to 698985777 at the premium rates mentioned in the respective pollces.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN, SC FOR LIC Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M.V.SURESH, SC FOR IRDAI

¶21

TherCourt made the i following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHTIYAN

¶23

AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE N. TUKARAMJI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.l17O4 of 2022

¶26

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

¶27

Heard Mr. K.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bathula Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 - Life Insurance Corporation of India. We have a-lso heard Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3 Union of India and Mr. M.V.Suresh, learned counsel for respondent No.4 - Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India

¶28

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praving {or the following relief:

¶29

"For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hontrle Court may be pleased to issue writ, order, or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or anv other appropriate Writ, declaring

¶30

A. Rulc 14(1) of thc Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 as being ultra uires of Section 3O of the Advocates Act, 1961

¶31

B. ttre lettcr dated 27.08.2021 and the consequent letters tlated 28.09.2O2 1 anrl 05. 10.2021 issued by the Rcspondent No. I . increasing the premirim rates arid collecting alrears on I6

¶32

HC] & NTRJ W.P.No, 1 1704 of 2022

¶33

¶34

R.' ,:P :.

¶35

insurance policies vide PolicY Nos. 698985762 to 698985777 as being illegal. contrary to provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 and lndian Contract Act, 1872 ar-rd C. consequently, direct the Respondent No. 1 to receive and process instalmcnt premium lorvards 16 life insurance policies vide Policy Nos. 6989857 62 to 698985777 at the premium rates mentioned in the policies D. consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to perrnit the Petitioner to be rcpresented lrv an advocate and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem frt and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶36

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the core issue raised in this u'nt petition i.e., validity of Rule 14(1) of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, has been answered by this Court uide tlx: judgment and order dated 03.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.45471 of 2022. N.Vijayalaxmi v. lnsurance

¶37

Regulatory and Development Authority of India.

¶38

By the aforesaid .jtrdgment and order, this Court held as follows:

¶39

"38. Therefore, u,hat we notice is that once the stage of Rule 16 is crossed and thc procecdings travel to Rule 17, the role of the ombudsman also changes; from being a mediator, he becomes an arbitrator and is mandated to pass an award based on the pleadrngs and evirlence brought on record.

¶40

HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No. I 1704 of 2022

I I

If this be the position, Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 would come into^play. As^per Section^{30 of the a-foresaid} Act, every advocate whose name is entered in^{the roll of advocates} sha-ll be entitled as of right to^{practice throughout tie territoriesto} which the Advocates Act, 1961 extends,⁽ⁱ⁾ in^{a.ll courtsincluding} the Supreme Court; (ii) before any tribunal or^{person lega.lly} authorized to take evidence; and^{(iii) beforeany other authority or} person before whom such advocate is by or under aly law^{for the} time being in force entitled to^{practice. Therefore,in the context of} the present case, what Section 30^{(ii) saysis that arl advocate as a} matter of right is entitled to^{practice beforeany tribunal or any} person legally authorized to take evidence.

¶46

Adverting to Rule 17 of the Insurance Ombudsman^{Rules, it} is evident *lat it is a forum mandated to^{pass an awardbasedon} pleadings and evidence brought on record. As such,^{when it comes} to adducing of evidence the^role of^{an Advocatecannot be dispensed} with.

¶47

As already noted above, art award^{involves an adjudicatory} process, which is equivalent to a^judgment awarding^{compensation.} Therefore, it is evident that till Rule 16 of^{the Insurance} Ombudsman Rules, it is a mediation^{process whereno role of an} advocate is envisaged but the moment the matter^{progressesto Rule} 17 upon failure of mediation, then an adjudicatory^{process is set in} motion which is to be decided on the^basis of^{pleadingsa:rd} evidence. In such a^process, role ofthe Iawyer^{becomesinevitable.}

¶48

The decision of the Bombay High Court supports the^{line of} reasoning which we have adopted.^{Whentheinsurarce} ombudsman starts^{proceedings under Rule 17 of the Insurance} Ombudsman Rules,^{he dischargeshis duties as an arbitrator and} ultimately passes^{the award. Whenhe does so, he performs tJ.e}

¶49

rx!;i .'r

¶50

4 HC] & NTRJ W.P.No. 1 1704 of 2022

¶51

duties of al art,itral tnbunal :rnd therefore, he would be a tribunal when he exercises the powers under Rule 17. But prior to Rule 17 as we have alrezrdv discussed :ibovc, it is a mediation process which does not envisage any role for a lawyer."

¶52

In view of above, ','c allow the Writ Petition in terms of the aforesaid^judgment arrcl order dated 03.O4.2023. A11

¶53

contentions on merit are kept open. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

6 . As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶55

any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed

¶56

SD/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶57

SECTI OFFICER

¶58

¶59

1 Lile lnsurance Corporation of lndia, A statutory Corporation, Having its central offie at Life lnsurance Corporation Of lndia, 'Yogakshema', Jeevan-Bima Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai 40002 Having its branch office at H.No.1-3-104, LlC" of lndia, Kazipet Satellite Branch, Besides Bhavani Theatre, Kazipet, Telangana - 506003

¶60

2 The lnsurance Ombudsman, Constituted by Govt. of lndia, For the State of Telangana, Off.6-2-46,1st Floor, Ivloin Court Lane Opp. Saleem Function Hall Palace, A.C. Guards, Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶61

3 The Secretary, Union of lndia, I/inistry of Finance New Delhi, lndia.

¶62

4 lnsurance Regulatory and Development Authority of lndia, Having its head office at Sy No.^'l 15/'l , Financial District, Nanakrimguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500032

¶63

5 One CC to SRI KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] t) One CC to SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN, SC FOR LtC [OPUC| 7 one cc to sRr GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOL|CITOR GENERAL OF rND|A [OPUC]

¶64