The court has jurisdiction to consider arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the treatment of claimants under insurance policies regulated by the Insurance Act. Delay in intimation of death cannot be the sole reason for repudiation of an insurance claim.

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Third Respondent to disburse the Insurance Policy amount pertaining to the Policy No. OG-08 1901-9930-00000080.

3. The Petitioner's Husband V. Ravichandran was working as Police Constable and due to electrocution, he died on 22.8.2007. The Petitioner's Husband was having an account in the First Respondent-Bank and he was offered an Insurance Policy by the Second Respondent-Company when he got a debit card from the First Respondent-Bank and after the Petitioner's Husband death, the Petitioner applied to the Respondents to settle the claim and necessary records were also filed along with the said Claim Petition. The same came to be rejected by the Third Respondent by communication dated 21.2.2008. In the said communication, the Petitioner was informed that the death of her Husband occurred on 22.8.2007 and the date of intimation is 6.10.2007 and therefore, the intimation is delayed and hence, the claim is inadmissible and thus, repudiated. In view of the said communication, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 2 & 3 raised preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the Writ Petition stating that the contract between the Petitioner's Husband (life assured) and the Respondents 2 & 3 is a private contract and no Writ is maintainable to enforce such a contract. It is further submitted that the Petition has an effective alternative remedy of approaching the Consumer Forum, if she has got any grievance and that she alleges any deficiency in services offered by the Respondents 2 & 3 and hence, the Writ Petition is not appropriate remedy.

5. Learned Counsel for the First Respondent-Bank submitted that since the matter relates to money claim, the Petitioner has to file a Suit before the Civil Court.

6. Firstly, it has to be noted that the Writ Petition was entertained by this Court on 18.12.2008. Therefore, even assuming that there is an alternative remedy, at this stage, to direct the Petitioner to avail such an alternative remedy is too harsh and it would be most unreasonable to do so especially when the Petitioner, a young widow with two Children and unable to sustain herself after the untimely demise of her Husband.

7. On the second aspect, it is true that the contract between the Petitioner's Husband and the Respondents 2 & 3 is a Private Contract, and not a Statutory Contract. Yet, the Respondents 2 & 3 are engaged in the business of offering Insurance Policies insuring the life of an individual subject to certain terms and conditions. The manner in which the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy is regulated by the Insurance Act, which is a Central enactment and therefore, if there is any arbitrariness in the manner in which the Insurance Policy or the fund is operated, then this Court has sufficient jurisdiction to consider as to whether there is any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the manner the Claimant is treated. Therefore, this Court would be justified in exercising its jurisdiction where it is shown that the Respondents 2 & 3, though was a Private Insurance Company had acted beyond the scope of legal principles and that their action was manifestly illegal, the Writ Petition cannot be stated to be not maintainable.

8. As regards the contention that the Petitioner has to approach the Civil Court only, the plea is wholly misconceived since under the terms and conditions of the Policy, the nominee of the life assured is entitled to the benefit subject to the terms and conditions and the question of filing Civil Suit or payment of Court-fee does not arise.

9. In the light of the above facts, if the communication dated 21.2.2008 is examined, it is evidently clear that the reason assigned therein is wholly illegal. Repudiation of a Policy can occur only in the event of contingenci