## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA,**
**1944**
## **WP(C) NO. 22329 OF 2022**
## **PETITIONER:**
HINSAF MANADATH HABEEB AGED 35 YEARS DIRECTOR, HYCOUNT GROUP, VI/410(1),PARK AVENUE, TEMPLE ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101. BY ADVS. MATHEW JOHN (K) ABY J AUGUSTINE
## **RESPONDENTS:**
THE HDFC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,LODHA EXCELUS, 13TH FLOOR, APOLLO MILLS COMPOUND, N.M.JOSHI MARG, MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI-400 011
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C) No. 22329 of 2022
-2-
## **JUDGMENT**
Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2022
The petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s.Hycount Moulders, a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture, marketing and sale of plastic items such as pipes, fittings, water tanks etc. The partnership was being managed by the petitioner and his brother Hinfas Manadath Habeeb. During 2018, the firm obtained a loan of Rs.3.37 Crores from M/s.India Bulls Ltd (M/s. IVL Finance Ltd.) The loan was guaranteed by mortgaging the residential property of Hinfas Manadath Habeeb. To further secure the loan, a term insurance policy for an assured sum of Rs.2,42,80,721/- on the life of Hinfas Manadath Habeeb was obtained from the respondent Company. The policy period was from 14.05.2018 to
W.P.(C) No. 22329 of 2022
-3-
13.05.2023. As per the terms of the policy, one time premium of Rs.1,94,245.77 along with tax of Rs.34,964.24/- was to be paid. By mistake, the policy holders' name itself was entered as the nominee.
2. To the shock and dismay of all, Hinfas Manadath Habeeb expired on 06.04.2021. Consequently, a claim was raised seeking the benefit of Ext.P2 insurance policy. After a lot of correspondence, the respondent issued Ext.P10 mail stating that, as per the respondent's findings after investigation, the claim against the captioned policy stands invalid. The petitioner was also advised to move the Insurance Ombudsman for resolution of the dispute. Accordingly, the petitioner moved a complaint before the Ombudsman. Sometime later, Ext.P14 letter was issued by the Ombudsman, informing that the complaint was closed, since the claim exceeded Rs.30 lakhs. This fact was intimated to the respondent by the petitioner and a request made to sanction the compensation due as per
W.P.(C) No. 22329 of 2022
-4-
Ext.P2 policy. By Ext.P18 letter, the respondent expressed its inability to consider the request since the petitioner had already approached the court. Immediately, the petitioner sent a reply stating that he had not even consulted a lawyer, let alone approach a court. The respondent reiterated its stand through Ext.P20 mail. Aggrieved by the adamant stand adopted by the respondent, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;
i. Call for the records leading up to Ext.P20 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exts. P10 and P12.
ii. Declare that the respondent is bound to honor its obligations in terms of Ext.P2 insurance policy and disburse the entire amount to M/s. IVL Finance Limited
iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondent to forthwith pay an amount of Rs.2,42,80,721/- together with interest at the rate
W.P.(C) No. 22329 of 2022
-5-
of 15.90% per annum from 06.05.2021 to M/s. IVL Finance Limited.
iv. Issue such other writs, directions or orders as are just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent is not disputing the fact that, for securing the loan availed by M/s/ Hycount Moulders, a policy covering the life of Hinfas Mannadath Habeeb was taken from the respondent and Rs.2,29,210.01 paid towards the first premium. Being so, on the death of the insured person, the amount covered by the policy is ought to be paid to the nominee/legal heirs of the deceased. Instead, the respondent is devising ways and means to wriggle out of its responsibility. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Madras High Court in **HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jasmine Ebenezer Arthur**
W.P.(C) No. 22329 of 2022
-6-
**and Others** (W.A. No. 4035 of 2019) to contend that the writ courts can direct payment of the due amount.
4. There is no appearance for the respondent, despite service of notice.
5. As rightly contended, the claim based on the death of Hinfas Mannadath Habeeb is seen repudiated by a cryptic oneliner. By Ext. P12 the respondent also informed the petitioner that if he is aggrieved by the repudiation, petitioner can move the Insurance Ombudsman. It was accordingly that the petitioner submitted Ext.P13 complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman. By Ext. P14 the Insurance Ombudsman closed the complaint since Rule 17(3)(ii) of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules prescribes a pecuniary limit of Rs.30 Lakhs. Surprisingly, in Ext.P18 the respondent has taken the stand that it cannot comment on the petitioner's complaint as he has approached the court and the matter is pending adjudication. Inspite of the petitioner
W.P.(C) No. 22329 of 2022
-7-
informing that he has not approached any court, the respondent reiterated its stand in Ext.P20.
6. Obviously, the claim has been repudiated without assigning any reason. Having informed the petitioner that he can move the Insurance Ombudsman against the repudiation, the respondent is also not justified in refusing to entertain the petitioner's complaint on the premise that the petitioner approached the court and the dispute is pending adjudication. The illegality of respondent's stand gets further aggravated by the fact that the complaint filed before the Insurance Ombudsman is closed and the petitioner has not approached any other forum. As such, the challenge against Exts.P10, P12 and P20 are well founded.
7. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently pressed for a direction to the respondent to pay the insurance amount of Rs.2,42,80,721/- to M/s.IVL Finance Ltd., I am not inclined to grant such relief, as
W.P.(C) No. 22329 of 2022
-8-
the insurer has so far not taken a decision in accordance with the applicable provisions. The facts involved in the judgment of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 4035 of 2019 being different, the dictum laid down therein cannot also persuade this Court to issue the direction.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of as under;
Exts. P10, P12 and P20 are quashed. The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's claim based on Ext.P2 insurance policy and take decision in accordance with law, within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
## **V.G.ARUN JUDGE**
Scl/sb
W.P.(C) No. 22329 of 2022
-9-
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22329/2022**
|PETITIONER EXHIBITS|PETITIONER EXHIBITS|
|---|---|
|Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER|
||DATED 28.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE INDIA|
||BULLS IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER'S FIRM.|
|Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE HDFC LIFE GROUP|
||CREDIT PROTECT PLUS INSURANCE PLAN|
||ISSUED TO MR. HINFAS MANADATH HABEEB|
||BY THE RESPONDENT|
|Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT SUMMARY|
||DATED 06.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE ASTER|
||MEDICITY HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES|
|Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF|
||HINFAS MANADATH HABEEB ISSUED ON|
||15.04.2021 BY THE CHERANALLUR GRAMA|
||PANCHAYATH|
|Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING VIDE REF.|
||NO.0/22741083 DATED 28.03.2022 ISSUED|
||BY THE ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE|
||TO THE PETITIONER.|
|Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION|
||DATED 08.04.2022 FORWARDED BY THE|
||PETITIONER TO IRDAI WITH COPY TO THE|
||RESPONDENT.|
|Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION|
||DATED 09.04.2022 FORWARDED BY THE|
||IRDAI TO THE PETITIONER.|
|Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED|
||13.04.2022 IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P6|
||FORWARDED BY THE RESPONDENT.|
|Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION|
||DATED 20.04.2022 FORWARDED BY THE|
||PETITIONER TO M/S. IVL|
|Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED|
||21.04.2022 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER|
||FROM THE RESPONDENT|
-10-
## W.P.(C) No. 22329 of 2022
- Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 26.04.2022 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN AT ERNAKULAM
- Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED 07.05.2022 FORWARDED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
- Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.05.2022 ISSUED BY OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN TO THE PETITIONER
- Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.05.2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN
- Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL REPLY DATED 20.06.2022 TO EXHIBIT P14 FORWARDED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
- Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED LETTER DATED 10.05.2022 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO M/S IVL.
- Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 18.05.2022 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
- Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 23.05.2022 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE RESPONDENT.
- Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.05.2022 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
- Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 16.06.2022 FORWARDED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
