V. Prema, v. Vasudevan Iyangar,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.04.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Cont. P. (MD) No.1347 of 2022 in W.A. (MD) No.549 of 2021 V.Prema ... Petitioner Vs.

Thiru.Vasudevan Iyangar, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office VI, 5th Floor, PLA Rathina Towers, 212, Anna Salai, Chennai - 6.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, praying to punish the Contemnor / Respondent for committing contempt for the wilful disobedience of the order in W.A.(MD) No.549 of 2021 dated 12.07.2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan 1/5

For Respondent : Mr.A.Shajahan Standing Counsel For State Level : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Empowered Committee Special Government Pleader and State Government

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.07.2022, made in W.A. (MD) No.549 of 2021.

2. Today, when the Contempt Petition is taken up for hearing, Mr.A.Shajahan, learned counsel for the respondent and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State Level Empowered Committee as well as the State Government jointly made a submission that, as directed by the Division Bench by the aforesaid order, the Insurance Company has already approached the State Level Empowered Committee and the State Level Empowered Committee having considered the plea of the petitioner has decided and fixed the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- as reimbursement and to that effect a Government Order in G.O. (Rt) No. 2/5

254 Finance (Health Insurance) Department, dated 27.03.2023, also has been issued.

3. Pursuant to the said Government Order, in compliance of the same, the said amount by way RTGS has been transferred to the petitioner's accourt and therefore, the orders have been fully complied with and therefore, the question of any contempt does not arise in this matter.

4. However, Mr.S.Govindan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is entitled for higher amount, therefore, the fixing of a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- may not be justifiable, therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court to clarify the said order i.e., G.O. (Rt) No.254 Finance (Health Insurance) Department, dated 27.03.2023.

5. Insofar as the grievance now expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner against the quantum that has been fixed by the State Level Empowered Committee and the G.O. issued in this regard by the State Government is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the 3/5

same in the manner known to law and that will not give rise to the petitioner to maintain the contempt petition any more.

6. Recording the aforestated, this Contempt Petition is closed. (R.S.K., J.) & (S.S.Y, J.) 18.04.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No SJ 4/5

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

AND S.SRIMATHY, J.

SJ Cont. P. (MD) No.1347 of 2022 18.04.2023 5/5