Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, ACJ, S.MANU, J
HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD – Appellant
Versus
JYOTHI MADHAVAN U – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the dispute surrounding death claim settlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding interpretation of ombudsman rules. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. clarification of jurisdiction limits placed on the ombudsman. (Para 12 , 21) |
| 4. judicial direction for reconsideration of the claim. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
S.MANU, J.
Appellants are the 2nd and 3rd respondents in W.P.(C)No.29499 of 2021. First respondent filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P4 award of Insurance Ombudsman. The said award was passed on the basis of a complaint filed under Rule 13(1)(b) read with Rule 14 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017. Grievance in the complaint was regarding non-settlement of death claim with respect to the husband of the 1st respondent. Though the Ombudsman found merit in the contentions of the 1st respondent, the complaint was rejected holding that the claim amount was above the limit stipulated under proviso to Rule 17(2) of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017. Learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions elaborately, held that the Ombudsman was wrong in rejecting the complaint and allowed the writ petition. The learned Judge set aside Ext.P4 award and directed the Om
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
