Patna High Court
Suman DeviversusThe Insurance Ombudsman, State of Bihar and Jharkhand
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The High Court set aside the Insurance Ombudsman’s order for not considering the petitioner’s documents and for denying a hearing, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Summary
The petitioner, Suman Devi, challenged an order dated 29-11-2024 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Patna, alleging that the Ombudsman failed to consider the 65 pages of documents she submitted and did not provide an opportunity of hearing. The High Court examined the Ombudsman's order and found that the authority neither discussed the relevance of the documents nor clarified whether they were examined, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the Ombudsman's order and remanded the matter back to the Ombudsman to pass a fresh order after duly considering the documents and giving both parties a chance to be heard. The Court directed that the fresh order be communicated to the parties and be disposed of within eight weeks of receipt of the copy of the Court's order. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the Insurance Ombudsman's failure to consider the petitioner’s submitted documents and to provide a hearing?
- Whether the Ombudsman’s order dated 29-11-2024 is liable to be set aside on grounds of procedural irregularity?
Subjects
- Insurance
- Insurance Ombudsman
- Procedural Fairness
- Right to be Heard
- Writ Petition
- Natural Justice
- Document Consideration
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1961 of 2025
======================================================
Suman Devi, wife of Late Rakesh Kumar Mahto @ Rakesh Mahto, resident
of Village-Ghataro, P.S.-Kartahan, District-Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Insurance Ombudsman, State of Bihar and Jharkhand Second Floor,
Lalit Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. Sri Ram Life Insurance Company Limited through its Chief Managing
Director, 5th Floor, Plot No. 31-32, Ramky Selenium, Financial, District-
Gachibowli, Hyderabad.
3. Branch Manager, Sri Ram Life Insurance Company Limited, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr Shahi, Adv.
Mr. Alok Shahi, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Raj, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
5 24-03-2026 A perusal of the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the
Insurance Ombudsman, Patna reveals that though the petitioner
has submitted 65 pages documents in support of his case, the
same have not been discussed by the authority. It is not clear as
to whether the authority has gone through those documents or
not and what are the documents presented by the petitioner. The
forum has not discussed the relevancy of the said documents,
except stating that in the absence of reliable documentation, it
could not arrive at a conclusion.
2. Having regard to the same, the impugned order
dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.1961 of 2025(5) dt.24-03-2026
2/2
(Annexure P/9) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to
the authority concern for passing orders afresh duly taking into
consideration the documents presented by the petitioner. The
authority shall endeavor to dispose of the case proceeding
before him as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order. It is needless to mention that before passing any order, the
petitioner as well as the respondents-Insurance Company shall
be put on notice and given an opportunity of hearing. Any order
passed shall be communicated to the party.
3. With the above direction, the present writ petition
shall stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…