SUBRATA GOSWAMI Vs. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dtd. 24/5/2022 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman in a case between the petitioner (complainant) and the respondent PNB MetLife India Ins. Co. Ltd. By the said impugned Award the petitioner's complaint against the respondent in relation to a policy issued by the respondent, was dismissed. The petitioner claims cancellation of the impugned Award and for refund of the premium amount of Rs.43,000.00 along with interest.

(2.) The contentions of the petitioner, through learned counsel appearing on his behalf is that the Insurance Ombudsman failed to take into account the applicable Rules and Regulations under The Insurance Act, 1938 as well as the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017. Counsel also relies on The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2017 to assail the impugned Award and the findings contained therein. Counsel submits that the PNB MetLife Super

(3.) The respondent no. 2, PNB MetLife has not appeared in the hearing of this writ petition right from the very beginning. Counsel appearing for the petitioner was directed to serve the respondent no. 2 as well as other respondents and three affidavits of service pursuant to such direction are on record. None of the respondents have appeared before the Court despite such repeated service. This fact is recorded in the order passed by the Court on 13/9/2022.