Administrative law and insurance ombudsman
Administrative Law and the Insurance Ombudsman in India
1. Introduction to Administrative Law
Administrative law governs the activities of administrative agencies of the government. It deals with the powers and duties of administrative authorities, the procedures they must follow, and the remedies available to individuals affected by administrative actions.
Key aspects include:
Delegated legislation
Administrative adjudication
Principles of natural justice
Judicial review of administrative actions
2. Insurance Ombudsman – Concept
The Insurance Ombudsman is an alternative dispute redressal mechanism set up by the Government of India through the IRDAI (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India) to resolve complaints of individual policyholders against insurance companies in a cost-effective, efficient, and impartial manner.
Legal Framework:
The Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 (updated from the earlier 2002 rules)
Governed by IRDAI
Jurisdiction: Up to ₹30 lakhs for individual complaints
3. Powers and Functions of Insurance Ombudsman
Redresses complaints related to:
Delay or non-settlement of claims
Dispute over premiums
Non-issuance of policy
Misrepresentation by agents
Can pass an award or reject the complaint
The insurance company has to comply within 30 days
4. Nature of the Ombudsman – Administrative or Judicial?
The Ombudsman performs quasi-judicial functions — while it does not follow strict rules of civil procedure, it ensures natural justice and fair play. It is part of the administrative law framework as a tribunal-like authority.
5. Case Laws – Detailed Explanation
Let’s now examine five detailed cases to understand how administrative law and the insurance ombudsman operate in practice.
Case 1: Rajeev Metal Works v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2010)
Facts:
A factory insured against fire damage suffered loss due to a short circuit.
The insurance company repudiated the claim, stating "no fire occurred, only electrical damage."
Complaint filed with Insurance Ombudsman.
Decision:
The Ombudsman held that damage due to short circuit causing fire is covered under the policy.
Directed the insurer to pay ₹18 lakhs as claim settlement.
Importance:
This case clarified that interpretation of policy clauses must be done in favor of the insured where ambiguity exists.
Upheld the principle of reasonable expectation of the insured.
Case 2: Mrs. Neelam Dhingra v. HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2021, Delhi Insurance Ombudsman)
Facts:
Policyholder's husband died within 11 months of taking a life insurance policy.
Claim rejected citing "non-disclosure of pre-existing diabetes and hypertension."
Issue:
Was non-disclosure of pre-existing disease a valid ground for repudiation?
Decision:
Ombudsman ruled in favor of the insurer.
Evidence showed clear non-disclosure.
Held that the insurer can repudiate if the policyholder concealed material facts.
Significance:
Reinforced the duty of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) in insurance contracts.
Case 3: V. Rajan v. LIC of India
(2015, Chennai Ombudsman)
Facts:
A maturity benefit was delayed by LIC due to internal processing errors.
LIC did not pay interest on delayed payment.
Decision:
Ombudsman directed LIC to pay interest at 9% p.a. on delayed amount.
Emphasized that delays caused by insurer cannot harm the policyholder.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the right to timely settlement and compensation for delays.
Held insurer accountable under principles of fairness and natural justice.
Case 4: Subhash Chander v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2012, Chandigarh Ombudsman)
Facts:
Vehicle insurance claim was rejected on grounds of driver not having valid license.
The insured argued that license was valid but not renewed on time due to lockdown (Covid-19).
Decision:
Ombudsman ruled in favor of the insured.
Held that technical lapses not amounting to fraud should not be used to deny claims.
Insurer directed to pay 75% of the claim amount considering partial breach.
Importance:
Applied the principle of proportionality and equity in administrative decisions.
Reinforced the concept of reasonableness in administrative law.
Case 5: Priya Sharma v. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2020, Lucknow Ombudsman)
Facts:
Claim under health insurance policy denied stating “waiting period for pre-existing disease not over.”
Policyholder had renewed the policy continuously for 3 years.
Issue:
Whether continuous renewal waives off waiting period?
Decision:
Ombudsman ruled in favor of the complainant.
Held that continuous policy renewal nullifies waiting periods for pre-existing conditions.
Insurer directed to pay entire hospitalization claim.
Significance:
Promoted consumer welfare and addressed maladministration by insurer.
Aligned with IRDAI Health Insurance Guidelines.
6. Critical Analysis
Role of Ombudsman in Administrative Law:
Ensures accountability of private insurance companies operating in a regulated environment.
Applies principles of natural justice.
Acts as a check on arbitrary administrative action.
Limitations:
Jurisdiction only up to ₹30 lakhs.
Not binding like court orders (for policyholders, but binding on insurers).
Appeals can only be made through civil courts or consumer fora.
7. Conclusion
The Insurance Ombudsman plays a vital role within the framework of administrative law by providing quick, impartial, and inexpensive redressal of grievances. The Ombudsman acts as a bridge between policyholders and insurance companies, ensuring fairness, transparency, and justice without formal litigation.
The case laws discussed show how the ombudsman navigates legal principles to protect consumer interests while also enforcing insurance law and contractual obligations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments