IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2223 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, ASHIKA PLAZA CORPORATE SOFTWARE PARK, SURVEY NO.32/5,NAGAR ROAD VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE -411 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER OPERATIONS. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, KOCHI 2ND FLOOR, CC 27/2603, PULINAT BUILDINGS M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. MR.K.N.RAVI KOURAPPILLIL HOUSE, NEAR SATHIYA SAI CENTRE N.S. ROAD, VELLOORKUNNAM MARKET PO 686673 MUVATTUPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.2223 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 21th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge is against Ext.P2, the proceedings of the first respondent, in complaint No.10/KCH/LI/21-009-133- 2008-09. 2. The subject matter of the complaint was that the second respondent has subscribed two unit linked polices floated by the petitioner. Admittedly, he surrendered the policies on 21.1.2008. According to the petitioner as per the estimate given to the 2nd respondent net asset value was Rs.5,97,148/- but he was paid only 5,16,961/-. In that process, the 2nd respondent lost an amount of Rs.1,23,890.88 and it was there upon that he lodged a complaint before the first respondent. 3. The contention raised by the petitioner before the first respondent was that the 2nd respondent had WP(c).No.2223/2009 2 approached them, offering to surrender the policies in the morning on 21.1.2008 and that as he did not give a confirmation of surrender before 3.p.m on that day, his claim was settled giving him the net asset value as on 21.2.2008. It is stated the amount paid is the net asset value as on 22.1.2008. This factual dispute has been fully appreciated by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P2 and finally ordered that the petitioner is entitled to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,27,890/- also. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner now contends before me that, the net asset value quantified by them at Rs.5,97,148/- was only an estimate and not a receipt as understood by the first respondent in Ext.P2. It is also stated that the amount has been arrived at applying the net asset value as on 18.1.2008. It is stated that at best, the first respondent could have ordered only payment at the net asset value as on 21.1.2008 and at any rate not the net asset value as on 18.1.2008. WP(c).No.2223/2009 3 5. However, I am not in a position to accept this contention. This is for the reason that before the first respondent, the petitioner had no such case and this contention is also not seen urged or dealt with in Ext.P2 order. If that be so, this court will not be justified in entertaining such a factual contention at this stage for the first time. 6. In my view after fully appreciating the contentions that are raised before it, the first respondent has rendered Ext.P2 order which cannot be interfered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.2223/2009 4