Kerala High Court
Haridas.T.G vs The Insurance Ombudsman on 6 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 4061 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
HARIDAS.T.G., AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. T.S. GOPINATHAN
NAIR, HARITHA CHITHRA NAGAR 51, ATHIRKANDOM ROAD,
THRIPUNNITHURA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682310
BY ADVS.
M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
MATHEW DEVASSI
ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE
OMBUDSMAN, 10TH FLOOR, LIC BUILDING, JEEVAN
PRAKASH, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
2 REGIONAL MANAGER, MANIPAL CIGNA HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD, 1ST FLOOR, MATHEWSONS CENTER POINT,
OPP METRO PILLAR NO.485, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 4061/24
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner asserts that the 1st respondent - Insurance
Ombudsman has not yet registered a complaint preferred by him
against the 2nd respondent and contends that this is illegal and
unlawful.
2. Noticing the afore assertion of the petitioner, this Court
had called for a report from the Office of the 1 st respondent, which
has now been made available. The Registry of the 1 st respondent
informs this Court that the complaint of the petitioner was received
by them on 18.10.2023 and that the case was registered as 'KOC-
MISC-H-053-2324-1518' on 14.11.2023. They further say that the
petitioner was asked to submit certain additional documents, namely
Discharge Summary, Rejection Letter and ID & Address proof; but
that he has not done so, though he was issued with reminders on
29.11.2023 and 14.12.2023.
3. Obviously, going by the report of the 1 st respondent, this
Court cannot cast any blame on them; and it is for the petitioner to
rectify the deficiencies and seek that his complaint be disposed of in
terms of law.
4. However, Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty - learned counsel for
the petitioner, submitted that, contrary to the contents of the afore
report, his client has not received any communication from the 1 st
respondent, either to make available additional documents, or the
reminders stated to have been issued.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I allow this Writ Petition
and leave liberty to the petitioner to approach the office of the 1 st
respondent with the details as have been called for by them; and if
this done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment, the said Authority will consider the
complaint, in terms of law, after affording both sides necessary
opportunities of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate
final order, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three
months from the date on which the petitioner approaches them.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4061/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICY BEARING
NO.PRNSLA050001344-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02/09/2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
10/09/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION
DATED 9/10/2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
16/10/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
