JUDGMENT : The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 award passed by the 1st respondent and for a declaration that the 1st respondent has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and resolve all complaints relating to insurance policies issued by the insurance companies. The petitioner has also sought other consequential reliefs. The averments in the writ petition are as follows:- 2. The petitioner's husband died on 11.04.2021 due to Covid. The petitioner's late husband availed a housing loan to the tune of Rs.1,73,00,000/- in November 2018 from the 4th respondent. In order to secure the aforesaid loan from the 4th respondent, the petitioner's late husband had taken two insurance policies apart from the immovable properties owned by him as security for the loan availed of by him. The two policies were taken by the petitioner's husband as insisted by the 4th respondent as a mandatory condition for granting the loan. For the sole purpose of insurance premium funding, the petitioner's late husband opened an account bearing No.637607046 with the 4th respondent. The two insurance policies were subscribed by the petitioner's late husband on 30.11.2018. The Policy bearing No.20910176 has a maturity value of Rs.30 Lakhs and Policy No.20924808 has a maturity value of Rs.1.40 Crores. The premium amount with regard to Policy No.20910176 was also paid on 30.11.2018 by the 4th respondent directly to the 3rd respondent Insurance Company from the loan account No.637607046. The premium amount of Rs.57,931/- was paid on 30.11.2018 by the 4th respondent directly to HDFC Life Insurance Company from loan account No.637607046. It is seen from the transaction history of the aforesaid account with the 4th respondent that the EMI has been collected by the 4th respondent from the account of the petitioner's husband till May 2021. Though the policy as per proposal No.20924808 was taken in November 2018, the Insurance Company for reasons best known to them delayed the issue of a policy against this proposal though the premium was collected. Though the policy as per proposal No.20924808 was taken in November 2018, the Insurance Company for reasons best known to them delayed the issue of a policy against this proposal though the premium was collected. It is the contention that if medical examination was a requirement to be fulfilled for the acceptance of the policy proposal and the issue of the policy, it is beyond comprehension as to the insistence for payment of the premium along with the proposal and the rejection of the same after 2½ years and that too after the death of the assured, and when a claim is made for payment of the amount covered by the policy. The petitioner, on 26.05.2021, went to the office of the 3rd respondent and submitted the claim forms with all proofs for policy No.20910176 and also furnished the details about the second policy in respect of proposal No.20924808. It is only at this juncture that the petitioner was informed that the Insurance Company has not issued the second policy even though the factum of acceptance of the premium amount in 2018 was acknowledged. It is an admitted fact that proposal No.20924808 was for the purpose of covering all the housing loans in case of happening of any unforeseen events. Moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Insurance Company did not require the fulfillment of any medical examination with respect to policy No.20910176 and both the policies were proposed on the same date and the premium also was accepted by the Insurance Company on the same date. The policies to which the deceased subscribed were not Health Insurance policies and the death of the assured was due to Covid and not due to any other ailments. On 05.06.2021, as requested by the Insurance Company, all the relevant documents with regard to the above-stated two policies were submitted. On 17.06.2021, the Insurance Company issued an online communication to the petitioner stating that, as per the confirmation received by their team, the application relating to the above proposal No.20924808 was withdrawn, since the requirements were not submitted within the time limit and the Insurance Company offered to initiate steps for refunding the premium, based on updated NEFT details and the same will be credited within 9 to 14 working days. The petitioner feeling aggrieved about the conduct of the Insurance Company, sought the intervention of the grievance officer of the 2nd respondent informing about the unwillingness to accept the proposal of the refund of the premium and demanded the assured sum to be credited to the loan account, so that the uncleared liabilities towards the loan availed of by the deceased could be cleared. On 25.06.2021, the 2nd and 3rd respondents rejected the claim made by the petitioner and informed her to approach the Insurance Ombudsman. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi on 23.07.2021. It appears that on receipt of the complaint filed by the petitioner, the Insurance Company has filed a written reply to the complaint. However, a copy of the said reply was never made available to the petitioner. Accordingly, as per Ext.P1 communication to the Registrar of the Insurance Ombudsman, the petitioner requested for a copy of the statement and documents filed by the Insurance Company. As the said statements and documents were not furnished to the petitioner, Exts.P2 & P3 e-mails were sent to the 2nd respondent Insurance Company. The 1st respondent Ombudsman heard the matter online on 13.09.2021. The Ombudsman by Ext.P4 award dated 16.09.2021 found that there was no communication from the Insurance Company regarding any requirement in connection with the policy. It was also found that there was no intimation by the insurer regarding the non-issuance of the second policy and the corporate agent of the HDFC Life themselves have procured the policy while granting the housing loan and that the policy has been assigned to them against the loan as security. Though findings were entered into in favour of the petitioner, the Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the complaint cannot be entertained by the Ombudsman, as the claim under consideration is above Rs.30 lakhs and hence, beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman has no authority to decide on such a complaint. It is aggrieved by Ext.P4 that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The 2nd and 3rd respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it is admitted that the petitioner's late husband submitted a proposal for an insurance policy as is evident from Ext.R2(a) proposal form. It is aggrieved by Ext.P4 that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The 2nd and 3rd respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it is admitted that the petitioner's late husband submitted a proposal for an insurance policy as is evident from Ext.R2(a) proposal form. The learned counsel, based on Ext.R2(a) submitted that the petitioner has deposited the first premium along with the proposal form and in the said proposal form it is specifically mandated that the company will be at risk in pursuance of this proposal for insurance only after the risk under the proposal form is accepted by the company and such acceptance is communicated to the petitioner in writing by the company and further that the company has the right either to accept or reject the proposal without giving reasons thereto. It is also mandated that if the proposal of insurance is not accepted by the company, the aforesaid deposit shall be refunded without interest. The respondents as per Ext.R2(b) letter requested the petitioner's husband to appear for a medical examination, which is mandatory for issuance of the policy under proposal No.20924808, but he did not turn up for the same. Since the petitioner's husband has not satisfactorily furnished the necessary declarations as required by the insurer, including the underwriting requirements, the proposal was not accepted. It is admitted that the 4th respondent has deposited an amount of Rs.57,931/- with these respondents and these respondents have not appropriated the said amount towards premium. The said amount could be appropriated towards the premium only after medical examination and after determining the premium based on the medical report of the petitioner's husband. The proposal was not considered as the Medical Examination Report was a prerequisite for considering the proposal. The amount of Rs.57,931/- is still lying in a suspense account and was not adjusted towards the premium, since the proposal was not considered. It is also stated that the said respondent has refunded the amount of Rs.57,931/- which was lying in the suspense account to the petitioner through NEFT. The stand taken by respondents 2 and 3 in the counter affidavit is that only because of the reason that the petitioner's husband did not turn up for medical examination, no decision has been taken on the proposal for insurance and the premium amount paid by the petitioner was refunded to him. 4. The stand taken by respondents 2 and 3 in the counter affidavit is that only because of the reason that the petitioner's husband did not turn up for medical examination, no decision has been taken on the proposal for insurance and the premium amount paid by the petitioner was refunded to him. 4. A statement was filed by the 4th respondent bank supporting the stand taken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, wherein it is stated that four loans were initially availed by the petitioner's husband as per the sanction letter dated 21.11.2018. The first loan is a home equity loan of Rs.43 Lakhs. Another home equity loan of Rs.31 lakhs was availed as per the sanction letter of the same date. Two other housing loans amounting to Rs.48,09,736/- and Rs.50,88,491/- were also sanctioned on 21.11.2018 itself. When the borrowers come for credit facilities, and when it is sanctioned, the concerned officer of the 4th respondent will inform all the borrowers about the need for insuring the loan accounts and the benefits which are available to borrowers by insuring the loan accounts. The 4th respondent and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are different and independent entities. The 4th respondent has absolutely no role in the decision-making process of the borrower or in the discussion between the borrower and the Insurance Company. As stated above, out of the first loan of Rs.43 lakhs, only Rs.30 lakhs was covered under the Pro-Growth Flexi Scheme. Under this scheme, if the policy holder pays the entire premium, on maturity of the policy after 10 years, the maturity value will be paid to the policy holder and the period of the policy comes to an end. If anything happens to the policy holder before the period of 10 years, the coverage under the policy of Rs.30 lakhs will be paid to the 4th respondent towards the dues under the loan account which is covered as per the policy. In view of this, when the death occurred during the subsistence of the policy period, the maturity value of Rs.30,00,000/- and unused premium of Rs.57,931/- was given to the 4th respondent by the Insurance Company. Upon receipt of Rs.30,57,931/- from HDFC Life, an amount of Rs.1,98,935/- was adjusted to Loan Account No.637607046 and the said loan for insurance premium funding was fully closed. Upon receipt of Rs.30,57,931/- from HDFC Life, an amount of Rs.1,98,935/- was adjusted to Loan Account No.637607046 and the said loan for insurance premium funding was fully closed. From the balance amount of Rs.28,58,996/-, an amount of Rs.28,41,379/- was credited to the principal of loan account number 636622316 (Loan Amount - Rs. 43 lakh) and Rs. 17,617/- was paid towards interest of the said account. The balance amount which remained out of the total amount borrowed on 21.11.2018 was Rs.1,42,98,227/-. Out of this, the deceased had decided to cover an amount of Rs. 1.42 Crores under the Click 2 Protect 3D plus scheme. As per this scheme, the policy covers for an amount of Rs.1.42 crores which is the sum assured in case of the death of insured person during the subsistence of the period of the policy. No maturity value amount will be paid in this case on the maturity of the policy. Premium amount also will be less when compared to the other. When the insurance under the Pro-growth Flexi scheme upto Rs.30,00,000/- does not require medical examination for issuing the policy by the Insurance Company, the policy under the other scheme requires medical examination for acceptance of the policy and medical examination is to be conducted in any of the approved centres of the HDFC Life. In this case also, coverage was for 10 years and the premium to be paid is Rs.57,931/- and has to pay the premium for 5 years. Medical examination is a must under this scheme. The deceased was told about this and the 4th respondent was also aware of the same. Unless the medical examination is conducted and report is received, policy will not come into operation and no policy will be issued by the Insurance Company. This was also informed to the deceased as revealed from the discussion made by the 4th respondent with the 3rd respondent subsequent to the filing of the above writ petition. The 4th respondent had a detailed discussion with the 3rd respondent in this connection, and the details of the policy also came to the notice of the 4th respondent during such discussion. The 4th respondent would further contend that the petitioner's husband did not appear for medical examination, despite direction issued by the Insurance Company for the reason that he is a follower of Naturopathic Medicine and he has no faith in Modern Medicine. The 4th respondent would further contend that the petitioner's husband did not appear for medical examination, despite direction issued by the Insurance Company for the reason that he is a follower of Naturopathic Medicine and he has no faith in Modern Medicine. It is further contended that the 4th respondent is servicing with a large number of accounts and for that reason also the 4th respondent did not notice the non-issuance of 2nd policy, and moreover, the borrower was regularly servicing the EMI of the insurance loan till his death. 5. A reply affidavit was filed to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3, wherein it is reiterated that what are the necessary declarations which were not furnished by the insured were not disclosed by respondents 2 and 3 when the proposal was rejected or at any point of time before that. In Ext.R1(a) proposal form, all the details were properly given by the husband of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondents have no case that the deceased was required to undergo medical examination and in order to do that, he has to indicate the preference of location near which the medical tests can be conducted. The proposal form was submitted by the deceased husband of the petitioner on 01.12.2018 and Ext.R2(b) is dated 09.02.2019. It is also contended that there is nothing on record to show that such a communication was made by respondents 2 and 3 to the deceased husband of the petitioner. The petitioner's husband passed away on 11.04.2021 and the respondents herein were keeping the alleged proposal pending from 01.11.2018 till the claim was rejected after the death of the petitioner's husband, on the ground that the deceased omitted to fulfil certain requirements and has not satisfactorily furnished the necessary declarations. It is also stated that the proposals for both policies were taken on the same day and the proposal for the lesser amount of Rs.30 lakhs was duly accepted without any medical examination and the proposal for higher coverage was kept pending without the least good faith and without bonafides and all the technicalities for non-acceptance of the proposal was raised only when the petitioner's husband passed away on 11.04.2021 and the petitioner had made a claim for the amount covered by the policy. The premium was paid by the 4th respondent Bank and if the amount is not accepted as alleged in the counter affidavit by respondents 2 and 3, they should have returned the amount collected through the 4th respondent Bank instead of keeping the same as a suspense account. The attempt of respondents 2 and 3 is only to see that the amount legally due to the petitioner is not paid to her. 6. A detailed reply has been filed to the statement filed by the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated that the contention now taken by the 4th respondent that the said respondent, as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are two different independent entities is not correct. It is contended that on lifting the veil of respondents 2 to 4, it can be seen that the ultimate management is one and the same. The contention taken by the 4th respondent that the petitioner's husband is a person following naturopathic medicine and was reluctant to go for a medical examination is a new contention now taken by the 4th respondent and even respondents 2 and 3 do not have a case to that effect. The attempt of the 4th respondent is only to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner and the 4th respondent is hand in glove with respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner has produced Ext.P6, which is the screenshot of the HDFC Life website, which shows that HDFC LTD and HDFC Life Insurance are having common members in the Board of Directors and they have a common Chairman also. This itself would show that respondents 2 and 3 and the 4th respondent are very much related to each other. 7. Heard the rival contentions of both sides. 8. This itself would show that respondents 2 and 3 and the 4th respondent are very much related to each other. 7. Heard the rival contentions of both sides. 8. A perusal of Ext.P4 award of the Ombudsman would reveal that the Ombudsman has proceeded practically accepting the contentions taken by the petitioner inasmuch as in Ext.P4 the 1st respondent held that there was no intimation by the insurer regarding the non-issuance of the 2nd policy and that as the policy is assigned to them against the loan, there is an obligation on the part of the bank to help the proposer for submitting the requirements called for by the insurer to complete the policy and a finding was also entered by the 1st respondent that the insurer had also kept the premium with them for 2½ years, from November 2018 till the submission of the death claim to refund the premium, without informing the fact of non-issuance of policy or follow-up for completion of the policy. It is also held that the reasons for non-refund of the premium amount for 2½ years, as NEFT details were not available, is not acceptable, as it is found that the insurer themselves have produced SI/ECS/NCH Mandate Form submitted by the proposer while the policy was availed in 2018. The 1st respondent also entered a finding that the family was kept in dark regarding the absence of insurance cover against the huge amount of loan taken and thus exposing them to the financial burden and now the insurer is trying to wriggle out of their part of the contract after retaining the premium for 2½ years. In spite of finding to a large extent in favour of the petitioner, the 1st respondent entered a finding that the complaint cannot be decided in this Forum since the claim amount is more than Rs.30 Lakhs and the petitioner was advised to approach other legal remedies for redressal of her grievances. Thus the complaint preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. To enter a finding that the complaint is not maintainable before the 1st respondent, the said authority relied on Rule 17(3) of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017(hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2017). The question to be considered is as to whether the 1st respondent has jurisdiction to consider the claim submitted by the petitioner. 9. To enter a finding that the complaint is not maintainable before the 1st respondent, the said authority relied on Rule 17(3) of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017(hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2017). The question to be considered is as to whether the 1st respondent has jurisdiction to consider the claim submitted by the petitioner. 9. Rules 2017 have been issued exercising the power conferred as per Section 24 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 and in supersession of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 and the object of the Rules 2017 is stated in Rule 2, which reads as follows:- 1. xxx xxx xxx 2. The objects of these Rules is to resolve all complaints of all personal lines of insurance, group insurance policies, policies issued to sole proprietorship and micro enterprises on the part of insurance companies and their agents and intermediaries in a cost effective and impartial manner. Rules 13 of Rules 2017 deals with the duties and functions of the Insurance Ombudsman, which reads as follows : 13. Rules 13 of Rules 2017 deals with the duties and functions of the Insurance Ombudsman, which reads as follows : 13. Duties and functions of Insurance Ombudsman - The Ombudsman shall receive and consider complaints or alleging deficiency in performance of an insurer (including its agents and intermediaries) or an insurance broker, on any of the following grounds- (a) delay in settlement of claims, beyond the time specified in the regulations, framed under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India Act, 1999; (b) any partial or total repudiation of claims by the life insurer, General health insurer; (c) disputes over premium paid or payable in terms of insurance policy; (d) misrepresentation of policy terms and conditions at any time in the policy document or policy contract; (e) legal construction of insurance policies in so far as the dispute relates to claim; (f) policy servicing related grievance against insurers and their agents and intermediaries; (g) issuance of life insurance policy, general insurance policy including health insurance policy which is not in conformity with the proposal form submitted by the proposer; (h) non-issuance of insurance policy after receipt of premium in life insurance and general insurance including health insurance; and (i) any other matter arising from non observance of or non-adherence to the provisions of any regulations made by the Authority with regard to protection of policyholders' interests or otherwise, or of any circular, guideline or instruction issued by the Authority, or of the terms and conditions of the policy contract, insofar as such matter relates to issues referred to in clauses (a) to (h). Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub rule, the term-deficiency shall have the as assigned to it in clause (11) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (35 of 2019) (underline supplied) Rule 17 of Rule 2017, deals with Award, which reads as follows : 17. Award.- (1) Where the complaint is not settled by way of mediation under rule 16, the Ombudsman shall pass an award, based on the pleadings and evidence brought on record. (2) The award shall be in writing and shall state the reasons upon which the award is based. Award.- (1) Where the complaint is not settled by way of mediation under rule 16, the Ombudsman shall pass an award, based on the pleadings and evidence brought on record. (2) The award shall be in writing and shall state the reasons upon which the award is based. (3) Where the award is in favour of the complainant, it shall state the amount of compensation granted to the complainant after deducting the amount already paid, if any, from the award: Provided that the Ombudsman shall - (i) not award any compensation in excess of the loss suffered by the complainant as a direct consequence of the cause of action; or (ii) not award compensation exceeding rupees thirty lakhs (including relevant expenses, if any). (4) The Ombudsman shall finalise its findings and pass an award within a period of three months of the receipt of all requirements from the complainant. (5) A copy of the award shall be sent to the complainant and the insurer or the insurance broker, as the case may be, named in the complaint. (6) The insurer or the insurance broker, as the case may be, shall comply with the award within thirty days of the receipt of the award and intimate compliance of the same to the Ombudsman and upload the details in the complaints management system. (7) The complainant shall be entitled to such interest at a rate per annum as specified in the regulations, framed under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India Act, 1999, from the date the claim ought to have been settled under the regulations, till the date of payment of the amount awarded by the Ombudsman. (8) The award of Insurance Ombudsman shall be binding on the insurers or the insurance broker, as the case may be. (underline supplied) 10. The Rules 2017 have been promulgated to resolve all complaints in connection with insurance and policies issued by the Insurance Companies. Rule 13 deals with the duties and functions of the Ombudsman. Rules 13(1) mandates that the Ombudsman shall receive and consider complaints or alleging deficiency in performance of an insurer (including its agents and intermediaries) or an insurance broker on various grounds stated in Rule 13, which includes as stated in Rule 13(h), non-issuance of insurance policy after receipt of premium in life insurance and general insurance including health insurance. Rules 13(1) mandates that the Ombudsman shall receive and consider complaints or alleging deficiency in performance of an insurer (including its agents and intermediaries) or an insurance broker on various grounds stated in Rule 13, which includes as stated in Rule 13(h), non-issuance of insurance policy after receipt of premium in life insurance and general insurance including health insurance. In the explanation to Rule 13, the deficiency shall have the meaning as assigned to it in clause (11) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines 'deficiency' as follows : (2) (11) "deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes- (i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer, and (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer; Rules 17 of Rules 2017 deals with the award to be passed by the Ombudsman which mandates that when the settlement by way of mediation under Rule 16 could not be arrived, the Ombudsman shall pass an award, based on the pleadings and evidence brought on record and the award shall be in writing and shall state the reasons upon which the award is based and further that when the award is in favour of the complainant, it shall state the amount of compensation granted to the complainant after deducting the amount already paid, if any, from the award and further, provided that the Ombudsman shall not award any compensation in excess of the loss suffered by the complainant as a direct consequence of the cause of action or not award compensation exceeding Rs.30 Lakhs (including relevant expenses, if any). It is the contention of the respondent Insurance Company that going by Rule 17 and the proviso to Rule 17(3), the Ombudsman has no power to award any compensation in excess of the loss suffered by the complainant and the said compensation amount awarded shall not exceed Rs.30 Lakhs and since the proposal for insurance was for an amount of more than Rs.30 Lakhs, the complaint is not maintainable before the Ombudsman. 11. Certain dates relevant for consideration of the issue in question are as stated below : 1. Insurance Proposal : 30.11.2018 2. Request for medical examination[ R2(b)] : 09.02.2019 3. Death of the insured : 11.04.2021 4. Death claim raised : 05.06.2021 5. Rejected on : 25.06.2021 6. Refund of premium : 21.06.2021( after 2 1/2 years from the date of the proposal) 12. The specific complaint made by the petitioner is that in spite of submitting a proposal for insurance as early as on 30.11.2018 and having paid the insurance premium, no decision was taken by the Insurance Company on the said proposal within a reasonable time and that the policy of insurance was not served on the petitioner. It is not in dispute that though the proposal was submitted on 30.11.2018 and that the insurance premium was also received, the proposal for insurance was rejected only on 25.06.2021, almost after 2 ½ years of the date of said proposal and that too, after the death of the insurer on 11.04.2021 and after a claim was registered by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the refund of the premium was also made only after the claim was raised by the legal heirs of the deceased insurer on 05.06.2021, i.e., only on 21.06.2021. On the basis of the same, the grievance of the petitioner before the Ombudsman was that the non-consideration of the proposal and the non-issuance of the insurance policy, after receipt of the premium is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. Since the respondent insurance company has specifically raised an objection regarding the pecuniary limit for consideration of a complaint before the 1st respondent Ombudsman, it is profitable to refer to the earlier Rules in respect of redressal of grievances, i.e., Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1998'), which has been repealed and substituted by the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017. Relevant portion of Rule 16(2) along with the proviso is extracted below : 16. Award:- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) An award shall be in writing and shall state the amount awarded to the complainant: Provided that Ombudsman shall not award any compensation in excess of which is necessary to cover the loss suffered by the complainant as a direct consequence of the insured peril, or for an amount not exceeding rupees twenty lakhs (including ex gratia and other expenses), whichever is lower. (underline supplied) Rule 16 (2) of the Rules 1998 provides that the award should state the amount awarded to the complainant but the provision in Rules 2017 dealing with the award, i.e., Rule 17 (2), does not provide that an award shall state the amount awarded to the complainant, but it only says that the award shall be in writing and shall state the reasons upon which the award is based. Moreover, the proviso to Rule 16(2) of Rules of 1998 provides that the Ombudsman shall not award any compensation in excess of which is necessary to cover the loss suffered by the complainant as a direct consequence of the insured peril, or for an amount not exceeding Rs. 20 Lakhs (including ex gratia and other expenses), whichever is lower. So, as per the earlier Rules of 1998, there is a rider that the compensation amount which could be awarded by the Ombudsman should not go beyond Rs.20 Lakhs, whereas in the present Rules, i.e., Rules 2017, such cut-off (the word whichever is lower) has been taken away and the proviso to Rule 17(3) only provides that the award of compensation shall not be in excess of the loss suffered by the complainant as a direct consequence of the cause of action or not award compensation exceeding Rs. 30 Lakhs (including relevant expenses, if any). Therefore, there is a vast difference in the provisions of the Rules 1998 and Rules 2017 in the nature of the award that could be passed by the Ombudsman. Therefore, the wording in Rule 17 (3) of the Rules 2017 that the compensation shall not be in excess of the actual loss suffered by the complainant and the same shall not exceed Rs.30 Lakhs cannot be read to understand that the Ombudsman can consider the claim only in respect of payment of compensation, which is less than Rs.30 Lakhs. Therefore, the wording in Rule 17 (3) of the Rules 2017 that the compensation shall not be in excess of the actual loss suffered by the complainant and the same shall not exceed Rs.30 Lakhs cannot be read to understand that the Ombudsman can consider the claim only in respect of payment of compensation, which is less than Rs.30 Lakhs. As stated earlier, the Ombudsman has been granted power not only to grant compensation but also to consider various other claims including the claim as to non-issuance of insurance policy after receipt of premium, (Rule 13 (h) of Rules 2017) which exactly is the grievance raised by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. Since the word “whichever is lower” in Rule 16 of the Rules 1998 has been taken away in the Rules 2017, the proviso to Rule 17 (3) of the said Rules can only be read to mean that in case of grant of compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant as a direct consequence of the cause of action like a rejection of the claim etc., the compensation awarded shall be for the actual loss suffered and not in excess of the same and the second limb of the proviso that no compensation shall be awarded exceeding Rs. 30 Lakhs can only mean that if the Ombudsman intend to grant any compensation other than the compensation which he is empowered to grant as per the first limb of the said proviso, like in case where any other damage or loss has been sustained due to the rejection of the claim in breach of the terms of the contract or in cases where settlement of the claim has been delayed unduly resulting in any other loss or damage to the complainant etc., especially due to the alleged deficiency in performance required of an insurer as enumerated in Rule 13 of the Rules 2017 (these situations mentioned are only illustrative not exhaustive) and if the Ombudsman finds that adequate compensation is to be given for any such loss due to said breach or delay etc., then the Ombudsman shall not award a compensation exceeding Rs.30 Lakhs. As stated earlier, the complaint raised by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was in respect of non-issuance of insurance policy after receipt of premium, (Rule 13 (1) (h) of Rules 2017) the Ombudsman ought to have adjudicated the said complaint and passed an order in accordance with the law and the rejection of the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction is absolutely incorrect. It is also pertinent to note that Rules 2017 does not provide for any other authority to consider any claim which is more than Rs. 30 Lakhs and therefore giving an interpretation to proviso to Rule 17 of Rules 2017 to mean that no claim above Rs. 30 Lakhs could be entertained by the 1st respondent Ombudsman, would render such claimants remediless, which is not the intention of the legislation. 13. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2017, which has been promulgated with the solemn objective to ensure the interest of the insurance policyholders and that the insurers, distribution channels and other regulated entities to fulfil their obligations towards policyholders and have in place standard procedures and best practices in sale and service of insurance policies, is very relevant for the adjudication of the issues involved in this case. The said regulation defines 'complaint' in Regulation 4(4), as follows : "Complaint" or "Grievance" means written expression (includes communication in the form of electronic mail or other electronic scripts), of dissatisfaction by a complainant with insurer, distribution channels, intermediaries, insurance intermediaries or other regulated entities about an action or lack of action about the standard of service or deficiency of service of such insurer, distribution channels, intermediaries, insurance intermediaries or other regulated entities; Explanation: An inquiry or request would not fall within the definition of the "complaint" or "grievance". 'The proposal form' is defined in Regulation 4(8), as follows : 4(8) "Proposal form" means a form to be filled in by the prospect in written or electronic or any other format as approved by the Authority, for furnishing all material information as required by the insurer in respect of a risk, in order to enable the insurer to take informed decision in the context of underwriting the risk, and in the event of acceptance of the risk, to determine the rates, advantages. terms and conditions of the cover to be granted; Explanation: "Material Information" for the purpose of these regulations shall mean all important, essential and relevant information sought by insurer in the proposal form and other connected documents to enable him to take informed decision in the context of underwriting the risk; Regulation 8, which deals with proposal for insurance is very relevant for consideration of the issues involved in this case, which reads as follows : 8. Proposal for Insurance 1. Except in case of a marine insurance cover, or such other covers approved by the Authority exempting usage of proposal form, a proposal for grant of insurance cover, either for life insurance business or for general insurance business or for health insurance business, must be evidenced by a document in written or electronic or any other format as approved by the Authority. It is the duty of the insurer to furnish to the insured, free of charge, within 30 days of the acceptance of a proposal, a copy of the proposal submitted by the insured. 2. In case of marine insurance cover or other insurance covers where a proposal form is not used, the insurer shall record the information obtained orally or in writing or electronically, and confirm it within a period of 15 days thereof with the prospect and incorporate the information in its cover note or policy. Where the insurer claims that the prospect suppressed any material information or provided misleading or false information on any matter material to the grant of a cover, then the onus of proof rests with the insurer only in respect of any information not so recorded. 3. Any proposal form seeking information for grant of life cover shall prominently state therein the requirements of Section 45 of the Act 4. While answering the questions in the proposal form for obtaining life insurance cover, the prospect is to be guided by the provisions of Section 45 of the Act. 5. Wherever the benefit of nomination is available to the proposer, in terms of the Act or the conditions of policy, the insurer or the distribution channel shall draw the attention of the proposer to it and encourage the proposer to avail the facility and inform him of the provisions of section 39 of the Act. 6. Insurer shall process the proposals with speed and efficiency and the decision on the proposal thereof. 6. Insurer shall process the proposals with speed and efficiency and the decision on the proposal thereof. shall be communicated in writing to the proposer within a reasonable period but not exceeding 15 days from the date of receipt of proposals or any requirements called for by the insurer. 7. Where a proposal deposit is refundable to a prospect under any circumstances, the same shall be refunded within 15 days from the date of underwriting decision on proposal. (underline supplied) Going by Regulation 8, the proposal for the grant of insurance cover shall be evidenced by a document in writing or electronic or other format and it is the duty of the insurer to furnish to the insured free of charge, within 30 days of the acceptance of a proposal, a copy of the proposal submitted by the insured. Regulation 8(6) specifically mandates that the insurer shall process the proposals with speed and efficiency and the decision on the proposal thereof shall be communicated in writing to the proposer within a reasonable period but not exceeding 15 days from the date of receipt of proposals or any requirements called for by the insurer and Regulation 8(7) provides that when a proposal deposit is refundable to a prospect under any circumstances, the same shall be refunded within 15 days from the date of underwriting decision on the proposal. Based on the said Regulation, it is the contention of the petitioner that the action of respondents 2 and 3 Insurance Company in not processing the proposal within the reasonable time and intimating the result of the proposal to the insured and the default in the refund of the premium amount within a reasonable time will come within the definition of 'deficiency' as defined in Rule 13 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017. Admittedly, even though the proposal was on 30.11.2018, the rejection of the said proposal was only on 25.06.2021 and the refund of the premium amount was on 21.06.2021, after almost 2½ years and that too after the death of the insured on 11.04.2021 and after a claim was made by the legal heirs on 05.06.2021. Admittedly, even though the proposal was on 30.11.2018, the rejection of the said proposal was only on 25.06.2021 and the refund of the premium amount was on 21.06.2021, after almost 2½ years and that too after the death of the insured on 11.04.2021 and after a claim was made by the legal heirs on 05.06.2021. Had the proposal for insurance been decided within the time limit as mandated as per the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2017, the petitioner's late husband could have approached other Insurance Companies with the said request and could have made himself secured against the loan amounts due, in case of occurrence of any untoward incident as in the present case. The inaction on the part of the Insurer had put the petitioner and her later husband to serious prejudice. Based on the same, I find considerable force in the contention of the petitioner that there is absolute violation of the mandates in Regulation 8 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2017. 14. Another contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is that on a mere receipt of the insurance premium, without actual communication of acceptance by giving an insurance policy certificate, it cannot be said that the contract is concluded and therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not liable to pay the amount covered by the proposal for insurance only for the reason that the premium has been paid. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and Ors. [ AIR 1984 SC 1014 ], which held that mere receipt and retention of premiums until after the death of the applicant or the mere preparation of the policy document is not acceptance and acceptance must be signified by some act or acts agreed on by the parties or from which the law raises a presumption of acceptance. The learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. The learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also relies on the judgment of this Court in The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Trivandrum v. Prasanna Devaraj [ 1994 (2) KLJ 570 ] which also took a similar stand relying on the judgment in Raja Vassireddy Komalavalli Kamba's case cited (supra) and held that there is no concluded contract inasmuch as at no point of time the acceptance of the proposal was communicated by the defendant-Corporation to the deceased. A consideration of the facts involved in these cases are much relevant for resolving the dispute involved in the present case. In Raja Vassireddy Komalavalli Kamba's case cited (Supra), from the facts detailed in the said judgment it can be seen that the proposal for insurance was on 27.12.1960 and the cheque for the premium amount was paid on 29.12.1960 and the insurer died on 12.01.1961, within a few days after the proposal was submitted. In Prasanna Devaraj's cited (Supra) the proposal was on 05.03.1982 and the cheque towards premium was received on 09.03.1982 and the death was on 19.03.1982 which is almost 10 days after the payment of the premium amount, whereas in the present case there is no intimation regarding the proposal submitted by the petitioner's husband and such intimation regarding the rejection of the same was given only after the death of the insured and the intimation as well as the refund of the premium amount was made almost 2 1/2 years after the date of proposal, and that too after the death of the insured and after a claim was raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the judgments cited supra could be differentiated on the facts and the same is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 15. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Asha Lata Parida and Anr. [2010 (2) CPR 390 (NC)] has considered a case having an almost identical set of facts. In the said case, the claimant therein obtained a housing loan from the opposite party, the Bank therein, on 08.07.2004, and to secure the loan amount against the risk of death, he proposed to take from opposite party No.1 therein, an insurance for a sum equivalent to the loan amount including interest with effect from 12.07.2004. In the said case, the claimant therein obtained a housing loan from the opposite party, the Bank therein, on 08.07.2004, and to secure the loan amount against the risk of death, he proposed to take from opposite party No.1 therein, an insurance for a sum equivalent to the loan amount including interest with effect from 12.07.2004. Necessary papers for the said purpose along with the declaration of good health were forwarded along with a draft towards premium on 12.07.2004 and thereafter the borrower died on 27.03.2005 and the claim made by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party as per the letter dated 29.12.2005 on the ground that the policy being at the stage of the proposal, due to medical requirement. In the present case also, one of the specific grounds raised by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is that by Ext.R2(b) communication, they have requested the insured to undergo a medical examination, so as to process the application for issuance of an insurance policy which was not complied by the petitioner’s husband. Repelling the contentions raised by the Insurance Company, the National Commission held as follows : 10. It being a case of housing loan exceeding Rs.7,50,000/-, under the said 'Operational procedure for implementing the scheme, the deceased borrower was to undergo medical tests. Plea raised by opposite party No.1 of the deceased borrower having not turned up for medical examination despite sufficient information has been disbelieved by the Fora below. Opposite party No.1 admittedly kept the proposal pending without taking a decision regarding acceptance of otherwise as required by para 8 of the aforesaid operational procedure for over 8 months and it was for the first time that through the repudiation letter dated 29.12.1995 it came forward with the plea that the master was at the stage of proposal dun to medical requirements. At this juncture Regulation 4(6) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002 framed by IRDA need be referred to. These regulations apply to all proposals for grant of a cover, either for life business, or for general business except marine insurance. At this juncture Regulation 4(6) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002 framed by IRDA need be referred to. These regulations apply to all proposals for grant of a cover, either for life business, or for general business except marine insurance. Said Regulation 4(6) provides that "the proposal shall be processed by the insurer with speed and efficiency and all decisions thereon shall be communicated by it in writing within a reasonable period not exceeding 15 days from receipt of proposal by the insurer's Opposite Party No. I cannot take advantage of the inaction of its concerned official(s) in keeping the proposal pending for a long time of more than 8 months to the detriment of the deceased and/or the complainant. Also considering the ambit of the aforesaid scheme the opposite party No.1 cannot evade the payment of the claim on ground of the proposal not having been accepted Shri Chawla, Advocate for fully exonerating the opposite party No.1 has relied upon the decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and Ors. (1984) 2 SCC 719 . As may be seen from para No-15 of this judgment it was decided on the premises that general rule is that the contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer has been made, accepts it unconditionally and communicates the acceptance to the person making, the offer. Reading of the aforesaid scheme and operational procedure would show that insurance cover is to be effective from the date of the draft of one time premium is issued and sent to opposite party No.1. In this case draft of Rs. 55,288/- was sent on 12.7.2004 to opposite party No.1 by opposite party No 2-Bank. In our view liability of opposite party No.1 has to be determined vis-a-vis said Regulations 4(6) and the scheme and operational procedure. Obviously, the repudiation of claim by opposite party No.1 was bad f. in law and opposite party No. I is guilty of gross deficiency in service. Order of the State Commission in awarding amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation by modifying the order of the District Forum can not be legally sustained. In fact the order of District Forum has to be restored. (underline supplied)) 16. Order of the State Commission in awarding amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation by modifying the order of the District Forum can not be legally sustained. In fact the order of District Forum has to be restored. (underline supplied)) 16. A similar issue was considered recently by the Apex Court in D. Srinivas v. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Others [ (2018) 3 SCC 653 ] wherein the earlier decision of the Apex Court in Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba's case cited supra was also discussed. That was a case where a housing loan was availed to the tune of Rs.30 Lakhs and the insurance was taken as a security for the said loan amount and a proposal to that effect was made on 29.09.2008 and on the same day, premium amount was also paid and proposal form was accompanied by a good health declaration by the insured. The insured died on 17.12.2009 and when the appellant therein approached the insurer to settle the insurance claim and to discharge the outstanding loan amount, it was rejected mainly on the ground that the proposal for the policy was not accepted as the insured did not present himself for medical examination, in spite of repeated request made by the insurer. Repelling contentions of the insurance company, the Apex Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment in D. Srinivas's case (Supra) held as follows : 10. It is clear from the above that the proposer was willing to join the life insurance coverage from the respondent insurance company subject to his undertaking medical examination and for his willingness he authorized the bank to debit his account for payment of the premium. This clearly implies that medical examination was to take place prior to the premium being debited from the bank account of the proposer. The specific condition in the policy is that in case the loan amount exceeds Rs.7.5 lacs the medical examination was compulsory. If the medical examination was compulsory for such cases it should have been done along with filing of the proposal form before the payment of the premium. If the proposal was not accepted for any reason the premium would have been credited to the account of the proposer. The premium has been refunded after 23.2.2011. From this, it is clear that the insurance company had not rejected the proposal before 23.2.2011. 11. If the proposal was not accepted for any reason the premium would have been credited to the account of the proposer. The premium has been refunded after 23.2.2011. From this, it is clear that the insurance company had not rejected the proposal before 23.2.2011. 11. Our attention has been drawn to the case of LIC v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 719 , wherein this Court has clearly stated that the acceptance of an insurance contract may not be completed by mere retention of the premium or preparation of the policy document rather the acceptance must be signified by some act or acts agreed on by the parties or from which the law raises a presumption of acceptance. 12. Although we do not have any quarrel with the proposition laid therein, it should be noted that aforesaid judgments only laid down a flexible formula for the court to see as to whether there was clear indication of acceptance of the insurance. It is to be noted that the impugned majority order merely cites the aforesaid judgment, without appreciating the circumstances which give rise to a very clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by the insurer in this case at hand. The insurance contract being a contract of utmost good faith, is a two-way door. The standards of conduct as expected under the utmost good faith obligation should be met by either party to such contract. 13. From the aforesaid clause it may be seen that the condition precedent for acceptance of the premium was the medical examination. It would be logical for an underwriter to accept the premium based on the medical examination and not otherwise. Therefore, by the very fact that they accepted the premium waived the condition precedent of medical examination. 14. It is an admitted fact that the premium was paid on 29.09.2008. That it was only in 18.01.2011 that the respondent insurance company informed the appellant that the policy was not accepted by them. We are unable to fathom the reason for such excessive delay in informing the appellant, which cannot be excused. We are of the opinion that the rejection of the policy must be made in a reasonable time so as to be fair and in consonance with the good faith standards. In this case, we cannot hold that such enormous delay was reasonable. We are of the opinion that the rejection of the policy must be made in a reasonable time so as to be fair and in consonance with the good faith standards. In this case, we cannot hold that such enormous delay was reasonable. Moreover, it is borne from the records that the premium was only re-paid on 24.02.2011, after a delay of more than one year five months. If we consider above aspects, it can be reasonably concluded that the insurer is only trying to get out of the bargain, which they had willfully accepted. From the aforesaid circumstances we can easily conclude that the policy was accepted by the insurer. 15. In the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that there was no complete contract. There is clear presumption of the acceptance of the proposal in favour of the proposer. Therefore, the majority view of the Commission would not sustain. ((underline supplied) In view of the above, the contention of the insurance company on the basis of the decision in Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba case supra and Prasanna Devaraj case supra that on a mere receipt of the insurance premium, without actual communication of acceptance by giving an insurance policy certificate, it cannot be said that the contract is concluded cannot be accepted, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Abraham Ittoop v. Insurance Ombudsman [ 2021 (3) KHC 61 ] to contend that the Ombudsman cannot adjudicate the claim on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. In the said judgment the only question that was considered by this Court is as to whether it is Surveyor's assessment of the actual value of stock or the claim of the petitioner before the Ombudsman was to be taken into consideration for considering the pecuniary jurisdiction and held that it is the claim that is to be taken into consideration. The question to be decided in the present case, i.e., as to whether the Ombudsman could consider a claim for which the compensation is more than 30 Lakhs, was not a consideration before the learned Single Judge in Abraham Ittoop's case and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. The question to be decided in the present case, i.e., as to whether the Ombudsman could consider a claim for which the compensation is more than 30 Lakhs, was not a consideration before the learned Single Judge in Abraham Ittoop's case and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. It could be seen from a perusal of Ext.P4 order by the 1st respondent that the said authority has practically entered a finding regarding the default on the part of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the matter of rejection of the claim for insurance, but ultimately rejected the application holding that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint wherein the claim amount is above Rs.30 Lakhs. I have already held that the said contention is without any basis and the 1st respondent Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since the only reason for rejecting the claim as per Ext.P4 is lack of jurisdiction in entertaining the claim, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the 1st respondent. Therefore, Ext.P4 is set aside with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the complaint filed by the petitioner in accordance with the law and also taking into consideration the findings of this Court in this judgment and also after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the respondents, including grant of sufficient opportunity to submit their pleadings and adduce evidence to substantiate their rival claims. A final decision in this regard shall be taken by the 1st respondent within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.