Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 93461
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
M.KOLANJIAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN – Respondent
WP/26310/2018
A writ petition will not be maintainable if the complaint has already been disposed of.
Headnote:
INSURANCE - INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN - COMPLAINT - DISPOSAL - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL - The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the orders of the Insurance Ombudsman and direct the Ombudsman to consider the complaint on merits and decide it in accordance with law, as the complaint had already been disposed of.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the orders of the Insurance Ombudsman and direct the Ombudsman to consider his complaint on merits and decide it in accordance with law. The petitioner's brother had two insurance policies with the respondents, and the petitioner claimed that the respondents had not paid the petitioner's claim under the policies.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the Insurance Ombudsman had already disposed of the petitioner's complaint on 08.12.2018.
Issues: Whether the Insurance Ombudsman had disposed of the petitioner's complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that since the Insurance Ombudsman had already disposed of the petitioner's complaint, there was no further order required in the writ petition.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, but granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman dated 08.12.2018, if any grievance existed as of now.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.No.26310 of 2018
M.Kolanjiappan
..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Insurance Ombudsman,
No.Fathima Akhtar Court,
4th floor, 453, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai – 18.
2.The Zonal Manager,
LIC of India,
Southern Zonal of India,
Anna Salai, Chennai.
3.Division Office,
P.B.No.324, L.I.C.Buildings,
153, Anna Salai,
Chennai -2.
... Respondents
PRAYER: This Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the records of the 2nd and 3rd respondents relating to
the impugned orders dated 31.05.2010 and 04.04.2018 and to quash
the same as illegal and further direct the 1st respondent to
consider the complaint dated 23.04.2018 on merits and decide the
same in accordance with law consequently, direct the 2nd and 3rd
respondent to pay the petitioner's claim under the two insurance
policies of his deceased brother together with all other
accruing benefits with interest from the date of the
petitioner's claim till the date of payment.
For Petitioner
: Mr.M.Senthil Vaidvu
For Respondents
: No appearance for R1
Mr.R.S.Anandan for R2 & R3
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd and
3rd respondents relating to the impugned orders dated 31.05.2010
and 04.04.2018 and to quash the same as illegal and further
direct the 1st respondent to consider the complaint dated
23.04.2018 on merits and decide the same in accordance with law
consequently, direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to pay the
petitioner's claim under the two insurance policies of his
deceased brother together with all other accruing benefits with
interest from the date of the petitioner's claim till the date
of payment.
2. When this matter was came up for hearing on 04.01.2022,
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would
submit that the petitioner's complaint was disposed of on
18.12.2018. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he does not have any instructions from his client
and sought for short accommodation for getting appropriate
instructions. Therefore, the matter was adjourned and directed
to be listed on 06.01.2022. Today (i.e. 06.01.2022), when the
matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner once again submits that he is not able to get any
instructions from his client.
3. Upon hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 &
3, it appears that the complaint of the petitioner dated
23.04.2018 was already disposed of on 08.12.2018.
4. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that no
further order is required in the present Writ Petition. However,
liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order
passed by the 1st respondent dated 08.12.2018, if any grievance
exists as of now.
5. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Pns
To
1.Insurance Ombudsman,
No.Fathima Akhtar Court,
4th floor, 453, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai – 18.
2.The Zonal Manager,
LIC of India,
Southern Zonal of India,
Anna Salai, Chennai.
3.Division Office,
P.B.No.324, L.I.C.Buildings,
153, Anna Salai,
Chennai -2.
+1cc to Mr.R.S.Anandan, Advocate, S.R.No.1539
W.P.No.26310 of 2018
PA(CO)
CB(04/02/2022)
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
