High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed; petition closed; libert...

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 / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 2497/2022

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

Section 64VB of the Insurance Act

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 NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kerala State Electricity Board And Another v. Kurien E.Kalathil And Others(2000) 6 SCC 293Mentioned OnlyCited 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 OnlyCited as authority for maintainability; no detailed treatment or application in the judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 2497 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 ABDUL SAMAD N.M, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, OWNER OF HOTEL SWAGATH, CLASSIC BAZAR, K.M.K.JUNCTION, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NADUVILAPARAMBIL, MATTUPURAM, MANJALI, MANNAM P.O., PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683520. 2 G.JAYAPAL, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, OWNER, INDRAPRASTHA HOTEL, OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL PERUMBAVOOR, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV ANOOP.V.NAIR ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,| |---|---| ||ORIENTAL INSURANCE REGIONAL OFFICE, H-1A/18, NOIDA| ||SECTOR 63, NEAR DOMINO'S PIZZA, NOIDA-201301,| ||REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.| |2|UIB INSURANCE BROKERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,| ||SEETHAKATHI BUSINESS CENTRE NO.684690, 6TH FLOOR, ANNA| ||SALAI, THOUSAND LIGHTS, CHENNAI-600006, INDIA,| ||REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.| |3|PARAMOUNT HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE TPA PVT. LTD.,| ||A-442, ROAD NO.28, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE WEST,| ||400604, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.| |4|INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN,| ||OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, 2ND FLOOR, CC| ||27/2603, PULINAT BUILDING, OPPOSITE COCHIN SHIPYARD,| ||M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682015.| W.P.(C)No.2497/2022 2 BY ADVS. GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) ALEXY AUGUSTINE GEORGE A.CHERIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.2497/2022 3 ## **V.G.ARUN J.** ------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.2497 of 2022** ## **---------------------------------** Dated this the 21st day of July 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are members of the Kerala Hotel and Restaurants Association (KHRA for short). The KHRA had joined the group insurance policy named 'Group Mediclaim-Tailormade Policy' of the first respondent insurance company. The policy premium is paid by the KHRA. According to the petitioners, the premium was being paid regularly. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their claim seeking reimbursement of medical expenses and hospital charges. The issue was taken up with the first respondent company, by the KHRA, but there was no proper response. The first respondent also froze the KHRA's account without intimation, resulting in the hospital bills presented by the members being rejected. Later, the account was made active and premium accepted. Even thereafter, the claims are not being honoured. Hence, the writ petition. 2. In its counter affidavit, the first respondent Company has stated that initially, a group insurance policy covering 6982 persons 4 W.P.(C)No.2497/2022 for the period 25.03.2021 to 24.03.2022 was taken by the KHRA, agreeing to pay premium in installments at the rate 18%, 41% and 41%. KHRA paid the first installment and defaulted from the second installment onwards. Therefore, the policy had to be cancelled on 30.05.2021. Later, at the request of the KHRA, Ext.P1 policy was issued covering 3523 members for the period 07.07.2021 to 06.07.2022. Since a fresh policy was issued on 07.07.2021, the same has to be treated as a new policy for all purposes and the claim pertaining to the cancelled policy cannot be entertained. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that even after so called cancellation of the first policy, the insurance company had accepted the premium. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the policy was live for the entire period. If so, the claims under the first policy are also liable to be honoured. It is submitted that, even claim under the second policy, which is admittedly live, are not being honoured. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the dispute with respect to terms of the agreement between the KHRA and the insurance company cannot be resolved in a writ 5 W.P.(C)No.2497/2022 petition under Article 226. In support of the contention, Apex Court decisions in _**Kerala State Electricity Board And Another v. Kurien E.Kalathil And Others**_ **[(2000) 6 SCC 293]** and the judgment in _**W.P.(C) No.2983 of 2014**_ are relied on. It is contended that, in any case, the petitioners cannot espouse the cause of the KHRA. If the petitioners have any personal grievance regarding settlement of their claims, that will be addressed by the company. It is contended that, as per Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, no risk can be assumed before receipt of premium. In the instant case, the KHRA had failed to pay the instalments towards the premium for the first policy, which resulted in the policy being cancelled on 30.05.2021. Hence, no claim under that policy can be accepted by the company. As far as the second policy is concerned, the company will process and sanction the claim following the prescribed procedure, but for that, each policy holder should raise his/her claim individually. I find substantial merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the insurer. Hence, the writ petition closed leaving open the petitioners' liberty to pursue their claims before the Insurance Company and to seek remedies before the appropriate legal Forum. The submission made on behalf of the 1st respondent, that if the petitioners submit individual claims, that will be considered in accordance with W.P.(C)No.2497/2022 6 procedure prescribed, is recorded. Sd/V.G.ARUN Judge dpk W.P.(C)No.2497/2022 7 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2497/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE "GROUP MEDICLAIM-| ||TAILORMADE POLICY SCHEDULE WITH POLICY| ||NO.272500/48/2022/1999.| |Exhibit P1(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE CARDS ISSUED BY| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER| ||AND HIS DEPENDANT FAMILY MEMBERS.| |Exhibit P1(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM FROM DULY FILED AND| ||SIGNED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED| ||BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION,| ||DATED 1.7.2021 MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND THE| ||RESPONDENTS.| |Exhibit P2(A)|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION,| ||DATED 6.7.2021 MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND THE| ||RESPONDENTS.| |Exhibit P2(B)|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION,| ||DATED 7.7.2021 MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND THE| ||RESPONDENTS.| |Exhibit P2(C)|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION,| ||DATED 12.7.2021 MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND THE| ||RESPONDENTS.| |Exhibit P2(D)|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION,| ||DATED 30.9.2021 MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND THE| ||RESPONDENTS.| |Exhibit P2(E)|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION,| ||DATED 2.11.2021 MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND THE| ||RESPONDENTS.| |Exhibit P2(F)|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION,| ||DATED 18.10.2021, MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND THE| ||RESPONDENTS.| |Exhibit P2(G)|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION,| ||DATED 12.11.2021 MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND THE| ||RESPONDENTS.| |Exhibit P2(H)|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION,| W.P.(C)No.2497/2022 8 - DATED 18.11.2021, MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND THE RESPONDENTS. - Exhibit P2(I) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION, DATED 22.11.2021 MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND THE RESPONDENTS. - Exhibit P2(J) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT E-MAIL COMMUNICATION MADE BETWEEN KHRA AND 2ND RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.2021. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY KHRA TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 26.11.2021. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT THE 1ST RESPONDENT HAS RETURNED 47 CLAIMS STARTING FROM 30/5/2021 TILL 7/7/2021 - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT THE POLICY HOLDERS INCLUDING THE PETITIONER WITH SERIAL NUMBER 34 AND 189 WERE NOT GRANTED WITH THEIR CLAIMS FOR THE PERIOD STARTING FROM 8/7/2021 TO 4/4/2022 - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT THE CLAIMS HAD BEEN REJECTED FOR AROUND 10 PEOPLE EVEN PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED CANCELLATION - Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS SHOWING THAT THE HUGE AMOUNTS INCLUDING 34 LAKHS, 12 LAKHS, 23 LAKHS, 30 LAKHS, ETC., HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT COMPANY ON 20/3/2021, 30/3/2021, 22/03/2021 ETC. - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE CARD OF ANOTHER POLICY HOLDER NAMED A.P.NAFEESA SHOWING THE VALIDITY PERIOD AS 06/7/2022