C.Raveendran vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1914 Ker

WP(C) NO. 26321 OF 2012                1



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
          FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943
                           WP(C) NO. 26321 OF 2012
PETITIONER/S:
           C.RAVEENDRAN
           AGED 56 YEARS
           19/67, "CHAITHRAM", OPP.PRESENTATION
           SCHOOL,PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
               SMT.NIMA JACOB


RESPONDENT/S:
     1     THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
           WESTERN ZONAL OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA JEEVAN BHEEMA
           MARG,MUMBAI 400 021.

      2        THE REGIONAL MANAGER (CRM) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF
               INDIA, WESTERN ZONAL OFFICE, YOGAKESHMA JEEVAN BHEEMA
               MARG, MUMBAI 400 021.

      3        THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
               LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
               JEEVANPRAKASH, KOZHIKODE 671 001.

      4        THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN PULINATTU BUILDING
               OPP.COCHIN SHIPYARD, KOCHI - 682 015.

               BY ADV SRI.S.EASWARAN


OTHER PRESENT:
           SRI.S.EASWARAN, SC


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26321 OF 2012                2




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No. 26321 of 2012
                    --------------------------------------
             Dated this the 18th day of February, 2022


                                 JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order

passed by the Insurance Ombudsman in complaint

No.IO/KCH/LI/21-001-460/2011-12. The petitioner availed a

Life Insurance Policy, which is named as Bima Nivesh (Single

Premium) without profit with compounded guaranteed

addition. It is a single premium policy for a period of 10 years.

The grievance of the petitioner is that after the maturity period,

the petitioner was not given the 'loyalty addition'. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner approached the Grievance Redressal

Forum of the respondent and the same was rejected as per

Ext.P4. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Insurance

Ombudsman. It is the case of the petitioner that when the

petitioner received notice from the Insurance Ombudsman, he

was not able to appear before the Insurance Ombudsman. He

sent Ext.P5 letter to the Secretary, Insurance Ombudsman

requesting to adjourn the matter. But, without considering the

same, the Ombudsman proceeded with the case and rejected

the complaint. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to

3.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his

contentions in the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel

for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that Ombudsman even in

the absence of the petitioner considered the matter in detail

and passed the award and there is nothing to interfere with it.

4. I considered the contentions of the petitioner and the

respondents. I perused Ext.P5 request submitted by the

petitioner to the Insurance Ombudsman on 16.8.2012. I

perused Ext.P6 order also. Ext.P6 order was passed on

21.8.2012. The request in Ext.P5 is to adjourn the hearing on

21.8.2012 to any other dates preferably to certain dates

mentioned by the petitioner in Ext.P5. In paragraph No.5 of

Ext.P6, it is clearly stated that the complainant remained

absent. According to the petitioner, he has got serious

contentions to be raised before the Ombudsman and if he is

given one opportunity, he will be able to convince the

Ombudsman that there is a genuine grievance to be redressed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think an

opportunity can be given to the petitioner. Since it is an old

matter, the Insurance Ombudsman can be directed to dispose

the matter, within a time frame. The parties can be directed to

appear before the Ombudsman on a particular date so that, no

fresh notice need to be sent by the Ombudsman. Thereafter,

the Ombudsman will hear the matter and pass appropriate

orders, in accordance to law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following

manner :

1) Ext.P6 is set aside.

2) The petitioner and the officers of respondent Nos. 1 to 3

will appear before the Insurance Ombudsman on

21.3.2022.

3) The Insurance Ombudsman will give an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 and

will pass appropriate orders in the complaint as

expeditiously as possible at any rate, within three months

from the date of appearance of the parties.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICY DOCUMENT EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PERINTALMANNA BRANCH OF LIC DATED 1.5.2011 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.7.2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.8.2011 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAND DATED 16.8.2012 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.8.2011 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS               :


EXT.R1(A)             TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 29.10.2010.