SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 13612

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Chellammal .M – Appellant
Versus
Office of the Insurance Ombu – Respondent


ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

2.The petitioner's husband was a member of the petition mentioned Insurance scheme. The petitioner's husband Murugan had Savings Bank account with City Union Bank. The petitioner's husband passed away on 01.06.2018. He had enrolled himself on 01.06.2015. The policy annual renewal date was on 31.05.2018. It appears that on the said date, there was no deduction from his Savings Bank account and payment of the premium amount. The petitioner applied for payment under the death benefit clause. The second respondent informed the Bank that since the premium of Rs.330 was not deducted due to insufficient funds in Murugan's account, the claim could not be admitted or honoured. Assailing the stand taken by the second respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Insurance ombudsmen. The ombudsmen rejected the petitioner's complaint. The reason for the rejection is as follows:

“v) Rule no.15 dealing with “Grace period”, states as under:

“The Grace period for payment of premium to the designated office of the Corporation shall be 30 days from the due date.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top