IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 36319 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOY.P.P, AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.PAILY, POTTAMPALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,FINANCE DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,KANNUR.PIN-670 001 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, IRIKKOOR, KANNUR.PIN-670 001 4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION OFFICE, P.B. NO.434, ST. JOSEPH'S PRESS BUILDING, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHPUARM.PIN- 695 014, REP.BY SR.DIVISIONAL MANAGER. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANGEETHA R4 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.36319/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.998/2009 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION. P2 COPY OF THE SCHEME IN GO(P) NO.221/2007/FIN DATED 29/5/2007. P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/7/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/7/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30/9/2010 OF THE LAWYER OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 9/11/2010 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE SAID COMPLAINT DATED 1/11/2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/11/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 20/9/2011 ISSUED BY THE INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).36319/2010 .............................................. Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P9. Petitioner's wife late Mary John was working as Assistant Teacher in Vayathur U.P.School, Ulikkal in Kannur District. She was a member of Ext.P2 Group Insurance Scheme implemented by the Government with the fourth respondent Insurance Company. Mary John died in a road accident on 20.12.2009. There upon, the petitioner submitted an application for the benefit of Ext.P2 Scheme. The application was made on 12.7.2010. It is stated that by Ext.P3, petitioner was informed that his claim was allowed. However, by Ext.P4, the fourth respondent informed the petitioner that his claim cannot be considered, for the reason that the claim was made only after the time limit specified in the policy and the Government order dated 29.5.2007 had expired. Against the said order, petitioner moved the first respondent by filing an appeal which was also rejected as per Ext.P9, with an advice that the petitioner may move the Insurance Ombudsman. It is at that stage, the writ petition was filed. 2. Although it is a fact that the claim of the petitioner was W.P.(C).36319/10 2 lodged beyond the time limit specified in the Insurance policy and the Government Order referred to above and in that sense, the view taken in Exts.P4 and P9, cannot be faulted. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced Ext.P10 document along with I.A.16433/2011. Ext.P10 is a circular dated 20.9.2011 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, advising the insurers, not to reject the insurance claim on the ground of technical reasons such a delay in lodging the claim. Now that the circular has been placed on record which was not available when Ext.P4 was issued, I am inclined to think that the Insurance Company needs to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P10 circular. For that purpose, I quash Exts.P4 and P9 and the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P10 and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs