ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the Complainant and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner, in the present case, is an insurance company. It is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order/award dated 17th February 2017 in Complaint No. PAT-L- 043-1617-0401 by which the office of the Insurance Ombudsman in exercise of its power under Rule 15(1) read with Rule 16 of the Redressal of Public Grievance Rules, 1998, passed the award in the following terms:-

"Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made during the course of hearing, the R/I is advised to settle the claim without further delay. The complaint is treated as Allowed."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this court the brief facts whereunder the claim in question was repudiated by the Insurance company and the same was communicated to the nominee. The repudiation was based on fraudulent suppression of age of the life assured, as according to the Insurance Company, there was a concealment of at least 20 years in the given age. The said letter of repudiation was subject to the complaint which may be made under the Public Grievance Redressal Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1998’).

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award passed by the Ombudsman is completely vague, unreasoned and it does not state the amount awarded to the complainant. It is his further submission that prior to passing of the award in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1998, the Ombudsman did not take any step to get the complaint settled through mediation as envisaged under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1998. On this ground alone, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order/Award is liable to be set-aside.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the Ombudsman has passed the Award after considering the case of the parties and in the Award portion of its order it has been clearly stated that the complaint has been allowed meaning thereby whatever was the claim of the complainant has been allowed by the Ombudsman.

6. In this case, a counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 i.e. Block Education Officer, Ramnagar, West Champaran. The affidavit has been sworn by the Block Development Officer, Ramnagar. He has brought on record a document vide Annexure ‘A’ to its counter affidavit saying that same is the admission register of the school in which the name of the deceased life assured has been mentioned with the date of his birth as 05.01.1965.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this court finds that without going into the merit of the contentions of the parties the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the solitary ground that it has been passed without following the provisions of Rule 15 and 16 of the Rules of 1998. The Rules of 1998 has been framed to govern all insurance companies operating in general insurance business and in life insurance business. The object of the Rule is to resolve all complaints relating to settlement of claim on the part of insurance companies in cost effective and impartial manner. The rule envisages appointment of Ombudsman by the governing body of the insurance council constituted under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 or (f). The insurance council will consist of Life Insurance Corporation of India, General Insurance Corporation of India and its four subsidiaries and other insurance companies which will be permitted to do insurance business in future.

8. Under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1998, the Ombudsman has been conferred with certain powers, Rule 13 deals with the manner in which the complaint is to be made and then Rule 14 casts a duty upon the Ombudsman to act fairly and equitably. Rules 15 and 16 provides for the recommendation made by the Ombudsman and where a complaint is not settled by the agreement under rule 15, the Ombudsman has p