Abdul Samad N.M and G. Jayapal v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., UIB Insurance Brokers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Paramount Health Services & Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd., and Insurance Ombudsman
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. G. Arun
- Judgment Date
- 2022-07-21
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed; the court closed the petition, noting substantial merit in the insurer’s contentions. It left open the petitioners’ liberty to pursue their claims before the Insurance Company and to seek remedies before the appropriate legal forum.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed; petition closed; liberty to pursue individual claims before insurer and legal forum.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Abdul Samad N.M
- G. Jayapal
Respondents
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
- UIB Insurance Brokers (India) Private Limited
- Paramount Health Services & Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd.
- Insurance Ombudsman
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv. Anoop V. Nair
Counsels for Respondents
- • George Cherian (Sr.)
- • Alexy Augustine George
- • A. Cherian
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners are members of the Kerala Hotel and Restaurants Association (KHRA) who joined the group Mediclaim policy of the first respondent. They approached the Kerala High Court seeking relief under Article 226 for reimbursement of medical expenses and hospital charges incurred by KHRA members under the policy. The policy premium is paid by KHRA. The KHRA contends that the premium was paid regularly, but claims were rejected when the insurer froze the KHRA’s account and later reactivated it; despite the reactivation, claims continued to be non-payable. The first policy, initially covering 6,982 persons for 25.03.2021 to 24.03.2022, was cancelled on 30.05.2021 due to default in installments. At KHRA’s request, a revised policy (Ext.P1) covering 3,523 members from 07.07.2021 to 06.07.2022 was issued, which the petitioners contend should be treated as a live policy. The insurer contends the first policy was rightly cancelled for non-payment and that claims under that policy cannot be entertained, while the second policy must be addressed only after individual claims are raised and processed per procedure. The court, while noting the insurer’s stance, ultimately disposed of the petition, stating substantial merit in the insurer’s contentions and closed the writ petition, leaving liberty for the petitioners to pursue individual claims before the insurer and the appropriate legal forum.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contended that despite the stated cancellation of the first policy, premiums were accepted by the insurer, implying the policy remained live for the period in question. They urged that, since the second policy is also live, claims should be processed and honoured. They sought relief through the writ petition under Article 226 to compel the insurer to settle medical claims for KHRA members. They argued that the writ petition is a proper vehicle to address collective grievances arising from the group policy and that delays or refusals by the insurer cannot defeat valid claims.
Contentions of Respondents
The insurer contended that the writ petition is not the proper remedy for resolving contractual disputes; reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions including Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil (2000) 6 SCC 293 and a 2014 W.P.(C) No. 2983 decision to argue lack of maintainability. It was argued that no risk can be assumed before receipt of premium under Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. With the first policy cancelled for non-payment, claims under that policy cannot be entertained. For the second policy, the insurer would process claims in accordance with the prescribed procedure, but each policy-holder must raise claims individually.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala State Electricity Board And Another v. Kurien E.Kalathil And Others | (2000) 6 SCC 293 | Mentioned Only | Cited by respondents to support maintainability arguments; the judgment does not appear to apply or overrule the ratio explicitly. |
| W.P.(C) No.2983 of 2014 | — | Mentioned Only | Cited as authority for maintainability; no detailed treatment or application in the judgment. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Samad N.M and G. Jayapal v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., UIB Insurance Brokers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Paramount Health Services & Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd., and Insurance Ombudsman and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.