Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010184782020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/742/2021 STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT 1 NEW TANK STREET, VALLUVARKOTTAM HIGH ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600034 AND REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, GANPATI ENCLAVE, ULUBARI, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI 781006 THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. S.N. GUHA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT EASTERN ZONE, ZONAL OFFICE KOLKATA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS THROUGH SECY., MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPTT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE CHAIRMAN INSURANCE REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA SL. NO. 1151 FINANCIAL DIST NANKRAMGUDA GACHIBOWLI HYDERABAD 500032 3:THE OMBUDSMAN AT THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN OFFICE JEEVAN NIVESH 5TH FLOOR NEAR PANBAZAR OVER BRIDGE S.S. ROAD GUWAHATI 78100 4:THE DEPUTY SECY. Page No.# 2/5 INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN OFFICE AT JEEVAN NIVESH 5TH FLOOR NEAR PANBAZAR OVER BRIDGE S.S. ROAD GUWAHATI 78100 5:MR. SHANKAR NATH DEY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 4C SHANTI NEWS SREEBHUMI NAGAR BYE LANE 2 GUWAHATI 78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K K MAHANTA, MR S GAUTAM,MS N BEGUM,MR. K M MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MS. K PHUKAN (LEGAL AID COUNSEL FOR R- 5),MR S DUTTA (R2),MS M BORCHETIYA (R2),MR. SIDHANT DUTTA (R2),MR SISHIR DUTTA (R2),MR. D C BORAH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 23.10.2025 An order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman whereby a direction has been given to the petitioner to make refund of the excess amount is the subject matter of challenge in this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the facts projected, the respondent no. 5 had taken a policy called “Medi Classic Insurance Policy (Individual)” in the year 2012 for his dependant mother which was renewed every year and the duration of the last renewal was from 05.03.2020 to 04.03.2021. As per the petitioner, there was a revision in the policy which required an enhancement of the premium amount. It is stated Page No.# 3/5 that such revision was according to Rule 10 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Health Insurance) Regulations, 2016. It has been projected that in terms of the same, the premium amount was enhanced which the respondent no. 5 was informed and no complaints whatsoever was made. However, the respondent no. 5 had made a complaint later before the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati and vide the impugned order dated 25.06.2020, the Insurance Ombudsman had interfered with the same and had directed refund of the excess amount. I have heard Shri K.M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Subham Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no. 5. There is a report by the Process Server dated 15.03.2021 that the respondent no. 4 was served and there is also an acknowledgment of receipt and accordingly it is held that the service is complete. This Court has also noted that while issuing notice vide order dated 10.02.2021, there was an observation that notice upon the respondent no. 3 would not be necessary. Shri Mahanta, the learned counsel has submitted that the revision of the premium was done in accordance with law and more particularly as per Rule 4 (a) of the IRDA (Health Insurance) Regulations, 2016. He has also emphasised that such revision was not confined to the petitioner alone and was a general policy and at no earlier point of time, there was any protest or complaint and suddenly the complaint was lodged before the Insurance Ombudsman. He has also submitted that the learned Ombudsman had not taken the relevant factors Page No.# 4/5 into consideration while passing the impugned order and has based the same on irrelevant consideration which are not based on law. Shri Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel for the IRDAI has however clarified that his client does not have any major role in the present issue as the decision is of the Ombudsman. As mentioned above, the respondent no. 4 has chosen not to appear before this Court and this Court had observed that no notices were required to be issued to the respondent no. 3 – Ombudsman. Ms. Phukan, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that the interference by the Ombudsman was proper and the direction for refund of the excess amount is fully justified. She has also submitted that at the time of entering into the contract of Insurance, there was no such stipulation of increase in the premium. While the learned counsel for the parties have raised rival submission, what this Court have noted is that the amount involved in this case is a petty amount of Rs. 4619/-(Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred Nineteen only). This Court is of the considered opinion that a writ petition should not have been instituted at all, that too, by the petitioner which is Multinational Insurance Company. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make out a case, this Court is of the opinion that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equity jurisdiction wherein all other relevant aspects are to be taken into consideration including the subject matter involved. In the present case, the amount involved being absolutely petty, this Court is of the opinion that such issues are not required to be adjudicated in a writ Page No.# 5/5 court. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the order is not passed in rem and rather the order is in personam and therefore, there is no question of any floodgate being opened for others. In view of the above, this Court dismisses this petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant