Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.30763 of 2025 Chandrama Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Bijaya Kumar Nayak (3) -versus- The Secretary, Insurance Ombudsman, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Bikash Kumar Padhi on behalf of Gurudutta Kar (for O.P. Nos.2 & 3) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 27.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3-LIC, who has instruction to appear in this matter. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “The petitioner humbly prays that, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties, especially to the opp. Party No. 1 , to show cause as to why the claim dt.11.3.2025 under Annexure-10 registered as complaint No.INS/OMB/BHU- Page 2 of 3. L-029-2526-0006, shall not be disposed with.in a stipulated time.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company, approached the Insurance ombudsman by filing an application on 11.03.2025 at Annexure-10. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is that although he has approached the learned Ombudsman for early resolution of the dispute, however, no steps have been taken on the application of the Petitioner dated 11.03.2025 at Annexure-10 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the learned Ombudsman-Opposite Party No.1 to the writ application, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3, on the other hand, contended that he has no instruction as to whether the Petitioner has approached the Ombudsman or not. He further submitted that in the event any direction has been given to the Opposite Party No.1 for early disposal of the pending application, if the same has not been disposed of in the meantime, he will have no objection to the same. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, further taking into consideration the nature of the prayer, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the claim of the Petitioner dated 11.03.2025 at Annexure-10 strictly in accordance with law and the applicable rules/ guidelines within a period of eight weeks from the date of Page 3 of 3. communication of a certified copy of this order. The application of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be also communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such a decision. 7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer