A writ petition cannot proceed when a prior award exists, leaving the petitioner to seek redress through appropriate legal avenues.

Mr. Arijit Mookherjee Mr. Prithish Chandra ..…for the petitioner Mrs. Soma Roy Chaudhuri Ms. Payel Khanra ….. for the respondent nos. 1 & 3 Mr. Supriya Dubey ….. for the respondent no. 4 The present writ petition has been preferred alleging inaction on the part of the Insurance Ombudsman in considering the petitioner’s application.

During the course of the hearing, Mrs. Roy Chaudhuri, learned Advocate representing respondent nos. 1 and 3, produced a copy of the order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman and submitted that the Insurance Ombudsman, by an order dated 26th July, 2021, had already disposed of the petitioner’s application.

Mrs. Roy Chaudhuri further pointed out that the petitioner had previously submitted an application, which was duly considered by the Insurance Ombudsman, resulting in an award dated 26th July, 2021. However, suppressing this fact, the petitioner made a fresh application before the Insurance Ombudsman and citing inaction on the part of the Ombudsman in considering his subsequent application, the present writ petition has been preferred.

Document, as produced by Mrs. Roy Chaudhury in Court is taken on record.

Mr. Mookherjee, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the award dated 26th July, 2021, was not communicated to the petitioner.

This contention has been seriously disputed by Mrs. Roy Chaudhuri, learned Advocate. However, a copy of the order dated 26.07.2021 has been handed over to Mr. Mookherjee in Court today.

Be that as it may, since an award was passed on