Shanmugasundari v. The Chairman

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.10.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.18797 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2024 Shanmugasundari ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chairman, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), Sy.No.115/1, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad-500 032.

2.The Office of the Insurance Ombudsman, State of Tamil Nadu & Puducherrry, Fathima Akhtar Court, 4th Floor, 453 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.

3.M/s.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, No.4/1044, 1st Floor, Kovai Road, Karur-639 002.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Award No.IO/CHN/A/LI/0059/2024-2025, dated 25.06.2024 and quash the same as 1/4

illegal and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to pay the insurance benefits to the petitioner as per the Policy No.74296782. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabhakaran For R1 : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem For R2 & R3 : No Appearance

ORDER

According to the petitioner, her husband died on 20.08.2023. Since he has taken insurance policy with the 3rd respondent, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent, seeking disbursement of the claim amount. However, the same has been repudiated by the 3rd respondent, vide Repudiation Letter dated 31.12.2023 on the ground that material information ie., insurance cover availed with other insurers, has not been disclosed and false income proof has been produced, when the proposal was submitted for subscription. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a complaint before the 2nd respondent, who in turn, confirmed the repudiation of the 3rd respondent, vide order dated 25.06.2024. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

2.At the outset, this Court is of the view that repudiation has to be challenged only before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or 2/4

before the competent civil Court, not before this Court. The petitioner has to establish certain fundamental facts by adducing evidence in the Commission. Those things cannot be decided in this Writ Petition. 3.In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Consumer Commission or the competent civil Court and the period spent in this Writ Petition shall be excluded by either of the Consumer Commission or the civil Court, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has pursued the remedy bona fidely before this Writ Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

18.10.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Yuva 3/4

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Yuva 18.10.2024 4/4