Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010022972026 2026:GAU-AS:2448 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/866/2026 SRI SUBHRANEEL BHUYAN SON OF RANJIT KUMAR BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.17, RUPALI PATH, RGB ROAD, NABIN NAGAR, ZOO ROAD, GUWAHAL, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN-781024 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110011. 2:INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (IRDAI) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS MAIN OFFICE AT SY. NO.115/1 FINANCIAL DISTRICT NANAKRAMGUDA GACHIBOWLI HYDERABAD-500032 3:FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT UNIT 801 AND 802 8TH FLOOR TOWER C EMBASSY 247 PARK L.B.S. MARG VIKHROLIW MUMBAI-400083 4:CLAIMS DEPARTMENT Page No.# 2/5 FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT UNIT 801 AND 802 8TH FLOOR TOWER C EMBASSY 247 PARK L.B.S. MARG VIKHROLIW MUMBAI-400083 5:THE BRANCH MANAGER FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR 3RD FLOOR RD ENCLAVE G.S. ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN-781005 6:THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR OF LODHA I-THINK TECHNO CAMPUS A WING 1ST FLOOR POKHRAN ROAD-2 OFF EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY BEHIND TCS BUILDING THANE (WEST) DIST. THANE-400601 MAHARASHTRA. 8:THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR OF LODHA I-THINK TECHNO CAMPUS A WING 1ST FLOOR POKHRAN ROAD-2 OFF EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY BEHIND TCS BUILDING THANE WEST DIST.- THANE-400601 MAHARASHTR Page No.# 3/5 9:THE CLAIM SUPPORT TEAM FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. PK Goswami, Senior Advocate Mr. BP Borah Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. A Gayan, CGC B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 18.02.2026 Heard Mr. PK Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. BP Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. A Gayan, the learned CGC for the respondent authorities. 2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition being aggrieved by the rejection of its claim by the respondent Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Ltd. on the ground that the petitioner was diagnosed on 26.12.2024 for cancer and the lapse reinstatement of the policy was done on 20.08.2024 due to which the waiting period clause of 180 days was not met from the lapse reinstatement of the policy. 3. Mr. PK Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to Clause 4 submitted that the said Clause 4 would not apply in the case of the petitioner, taking into account that the petitioner all along had this policy since 2017 and for a particular period of time, the Page No.# 4/5 petitioner did not service the premium. But the respondent Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Ltd. had reinstated the same policy upon taking the premium. He, therefore, submitted that Clause 4 on the basis of which the petitioner’s claim has been rejected would not apply. 4. Per contra, Ms. A Gayan, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy in approaching the Insurance Ombudsman and instead of approaching the Insurance Ombudsman, the petitioner has directly approached this Court. 5. Mr. PK Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant proceedings raises question on the interpretation of Clause 4 of the Policy in question. 6. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and it is the opinion of this Court that the aspect pertaining to whether the waiting period would apply in the case of the petitioner can be very well adjudicated by the Insurance Ombudsman, taking into account that the Insurance Ombudsman is the Specialized Authority which deals with rejection of Claims by Insurance Company. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the petitioner should approach the Insurance Ombudsman. Additionally, it is also the mandate of Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’) that such application is required to be disposed off within 90(ninety) days. 7. It is also the opinion of this Court that in the present circumstances, the petitioner should be relegated back to the Insurance Ombudsman for availing Page No.# 5/5 the alternative and efficacious remedy. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). This Court is not inclined to entertain the dispute raised in the instant writ petition on account of the availability of the Insurance Ombudsman as permitted under Rule 14 of the Rules of 2017. (ii). This Court also duly takes note of that in terms with Rule 14 of the Rules of 2017, the Insurance Ombudsman has been obligated to dispose of such proceedings within a period of 90 days. (iii). Taking into account the urgency expressed in the instant proceedings, this Court hopes and expects that the Insurance Ombudsman shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible upon filing of such application. 9. It is observed that in the circumstance, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Insurance Ombudsman, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court again. JUDGE Comparing Assistant