Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 878 (UTT)

Krishna Kumar Kalra v. Insurance Ombudsman Office

2016-11-24

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “(I) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to decide the complaint No. NOI-L029-1516-0363, Mr. Krishna Kumar vs. LIC of India (Nainital) pending before him for disposal within fortnight”. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The son of the petitioner was engaged in his owe Rope business with the petitioner. During the working period, he went his godown. Due to short circuit of electricity, the son of the petitioner was severely burnt and, succumbed to his injury on 14.08.2011. The information about the incident was given to the Fire Unit, Ramnagar and the said unit immediately reached at the spot and the son of the petitioner was sent for treatment at government hospital. Incharge, Fire Station, Ramnager, in his report, categorically mentioned that the incident took place due to short circuit. The deceased was having a policy, bearing no. 241838100 from LIC Branch, Haldwani and the benefit of the accident claim against the said policy amounting Rs. 3,00,000/- was disbursed by Cheque No. 366870 dated 18.12.2012 by the said branch. It is alleged that regarding policy nos. 241683838, 242060046 and 242801502, which were purchased from the LIC Branch, Ramnagar, the respondents have not paid the benefit of the accident claim and have only paid the premium amount deposited by the deceased son of the petitioner. In regard to the same accident, one branch paid the accidental amount and on another hand, another branch of same corporation refused to pay the accidental claim to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 01.03.2013, respondent no. 4 wrote a letter to the petitioner mentioning therein that since the insurance policy holder was involved previously in illegal gas refilling and he died due to blast of gas refilling, hence, claim for the said accident is not considered. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority, but the respondent no. 4 intimated that respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner and confirmed the order passed on 01.03.2013. When no action was taken by the respondent in the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition 1153 (M/S) of 2015. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority, but the respondent no. 4 intimated that respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner and confirmed the order passed on 01.03.2013. When no action was taken by the respondent in the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition 1153 (M/S) of 2015. Vide order dated 03.08.2015, this Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and clarified that if complaint is filed by the petitioner before the Ombudsman from that day, Ombudsman shall explore every possibility to decide the same, on its own merit, in accordance with law, preferably within four months, thereafter. Thereafter, petitioner made a complaint before the Ombudsman Noida, Uttar Pradesh/respondent no. 1 within stipulated time. Respondent no. 1 issued letter dated 16.09.2015 to the petitioner informing him about the registration of complaint as complaint No. NOI-L029-1516-0363 alongwith proforma of complaint. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, petitioner submitted the complaint in the prescribed format before the respondent no. 1. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 intimated the petitioner about the hearing of the aforesaid complaint before respondent no. 1 on 04.02.2016 at Nainital and also intimated to be present at LIC of India, B.S.N.L Building, Nainital. On 04.02.2016, the petitioner presented himself before respondent no. 1 and his statement was recorded on the same day. Thereafter, no order was passed by the respondent no. 3, therefore, under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner made an application before the respondent no. 1 on 12.07.2016 with a prayer to decide the matter expeditiously. Despite of the aforesaid application moved by the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 did not take any decision on the matter. Hence, this writ petition. 3. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. 4. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner also prayed that direction may be issued to decide his pending representation dated 12.07.2016 at the earliest. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 submits that the complaint moved by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 has been decided on 16.05.2016. 6. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5, the writ petition is closed. 7. All the pending applications stand disposed of.