In W.P.No.22234 of 2016, and W.M.P.Nos.18968 of 2016 and 26265 of 2018, Jasmine Ebenezer Arthur vs 1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited 2. HDFC Bank Ltd. 3. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, the plaintiff had filed the writ petition on her claim being rejected by the insurer as well as the insurance ombudsman.
The insurance company assailed the writ on several grounds : -
1) Writ is not maintainable against the insurer which is a private ltd. company
2) The disease of which her husband the insured died was not covered under the policy.
3) Opinion of an eminent doctor also concurred with the above point
4) The ombudsman had also rejected the policy
The Madras High Court however did not agree. The High Court observed that a reading of Article 226 makes it clear that it can be invoked not only for infringement of fundamental rights, but also for any other purpose. Therefore, as stated above, the question that requires determination is whether the private bodies performing public duties can be brought within the purview of judicial review. If a private body is brought within the purview of Article 12, then it will be subject to constitutional limitations. As happened in this case, lack of effective control has made the private bodies acquire more power similar to public authorities. The public monopoly power is replaced by private monopoly power. Hence, it becomes necessary that the private bodies should be made accountable to judiciary within the judicial review. If any private body has a public duty imposed on it, the Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. As for the opinion, the court with the consent of all parties referred the matter to an eminent physician in whose opinion the illness of the insured may fall within the policy.
The insurance company assailed the writ on several grounds : -
1) Writ is not maintainable against the insurer which is a private ltd. company
2) The disease of which her husband the insured died was not covered under the policy.
3) Opinion of an eminent doctor also concurred with the above point
4) The ombudsman had also rejected the policy
The Madras High Court however did not agree. The High Court observed that a reading of Article 226 makes it clear that it can be invoked not only for infringement of fundamental rights, but also for any other purpose. Therefore, as stated above, the question that requires determination is whether the private bodies performing public duties can be brought within the purview of judicial review. If a private body is brought within the purview of Article 12, then it will be subject to constitutional limitations. As happened in this case, lack of effective control has made the private bodies acquire more power similar to public authorities. The public monopoly power is replaced by private monopoly power. Hence, it becomes necessary that the private bodies should be made accountable to judiciary within the judicial review. If any private body has a public duty imposed on it, the Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. As for the opinion, the court with the consent of all parties referred the matter to an eminent physician in whose opinion the illness of the insured may fall within the policy.
Comments
Post a Comment