Kerala High Court
Azad Umaima vs United India Insurance Company on 23 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2080 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 AZAD UMAIMA, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. S A RAZZAK
70/1841, 26-ACS ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017
2 SHAHUL HAMEED ABDUL RAZZAK, AGED 73 YEARS
70/1841,26 ACS ROAD,KALOOR , KOCHI, PIN - 682017
BY ADV G.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE,
SHARANYA, HOSPITAL RD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BO 2 EKM, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN - 682025
3 INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, 10TH FLOOR,
LIC BUILDING, JEEVAN PRAKASH, M.G.ROAD,
ERNAKULAM,KOCHI, PIN - 682011
4 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADVS,
SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR - SC - R1, R2
SRI.S.MANU - DSGI - R4
SRI.P.S.APPU - GP - R3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 2080/24
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners seek that the respondent - Insurance Company,
be directed to issue the second among them an Overseas Travel
Insurance Policy, so as to enable them to travel and join their
daughter in the United States of America. They say that, even though
the Policy was granted in favour of the first among them, it has been
denied to the second, citing untenable reasons and therefore, that
they approached the Insurance Ombudsman with Ext.P9 complaint,
leading to Ext.P10 being issued by the said Authority, merely
affirming the ground of rejection of their claim by the Insurance
Company, namely, that the 2nd respondent suffers from adverse
medical conditions.
2. The petitioners assert that the afore stand of the Insurance
Company, as also Ext.P10, are untenable and factually incorrect
because, Ext.P2 Medical Certificate - which was accepted by the
Insurance Company with respect to the 1st petitioner - clearly
establishes that the 2nd petitioner also does not have any adverse
medical condition; and therefore, that the rejection of his request is
illegal and unlawful. The petitioners, therefore, pray that Ext.P10 be
set aside and the 3rd respondent - Insurance Ombudsman be directed
to reconsider the matter without any avoidable delay.
3. Sri.G.Krishnakumar - learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that, since his clients have to travel to the United States
within one month, any further delay, in the Insurance Company
granting them the Policy, would be deleterious and irreparable. He,
therefore, prayed that, instead of the 3 rd respondent being directed to
reconsider Ext.P9, the Insurance Company be ordered to reconsider
the application of the 2nd petitioner, adverting to Ext.P2 - which, he
reiterated, had been accepted by them as regards the 1st petitioner.
4. In response, Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar - learned Standing
Counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that the law is now
well settled that no one has a vested right to claim that his client
should grant them a Policy, particularly a Medical Insurance Policy.
He argued that the grant or denial of a Policy would depend upon
various factors; and that, in this case, latter was done because the 2 nd
petitioner has several medical reports against him. He, however,
submitted that, if this Court is so inclined, his client is willing to
reconsider the matter as regards the 2nd petitioner, adverting to
Ext.P2, provided he is also willing to go through any medical
assessment, as may be found necessary, for such purpose. He added
that he is making this submission only in the peculiar circumstances
involved in this case and not in recognition of any right to the
petitioners.
5. When I evaluate and consider the afore rival submissions
and go through the prayers made in this Writ Petition, I am certain
that it would be of no real worth to the petitioners if this Court is to
direct the Insurance Ombudsman to reconsider Ext.P9 complaint,
particularly when they say that they have to travel to the United
States within a month. Certainly, time is against them; and
obviously, therefore, it will be better for them, if the 1 st respondent
is directed to reconsider their application qua the second among
them, provided they are willing to abide by the conditions afore
stated by Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar.
6. Pertinently, the learned counsel for the petitioners -
Sri.G.Krishnakumar, accepted every condition as afore suggested by
the learned Standing Counsel of the Insurance Company, but prayed
that the 1st respondent be directed to reconsider the matter within a
period of one week or even less.
Taking note of the afore scenario, I allow this Writ Petition and
direct the competent Authority of the 1st respondent - Insurance
Company, to reconsider the application for medical insurance to the
second petitioner, specifically adverting to Ext.P2, after affording him
an opportunity of being heard and of producing any other relevant
documents.
To enable this, I direct the 2nd petitioner to appear before the
Regional Officer of the Insurance Company at 11 A.M. on 26.02.2024;
on which day, if the competent Authority requires the petitioner to
be evaluated medically again, necessary arrangement for the same
shall also be done.
In any event, a final decision in terms of the directions herein
will be communicated to the 2nd petitioner, not later than 05.03.2024.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2080/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF 1ST PETITIONER'S POLICY
PROPOSAL DT.10/05/2023 TO 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit2 TRUE COPY OF 2ND PETITIONER'S POLICY
PROPOSAL DT.10/05/2023 TO 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF POLICY CERTIFICATE DT.26-6-
2023 TO 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF 1ST RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED
02-8-2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF 2ND PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION DATED 16-08-2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF AIR TICKETS FOR OVERSEAS
TRAVEL ON 14-3-2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF COMPENSATION CLAIM DATED 14-
7-2023 OF PETITIONERS TO INSURER
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 25-10-
2023 OF 2ND PETITIONER TO INSURER
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT DATED
30-11-2023 TO INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM OFFICE OF
INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN DATED 03/01/2024
