$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 389/2026 DR SURESH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Isha khanna, Mr. Nikhil Arora, Ms. Ruchika Malik, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi CGSC with Ms Aditi Singh GP, Ms Himanshi Singh Advocate for UOI. Mr. Abhishek Nanda and Ms. Hrishika Rawat, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.01.2026 CM APPL. 1869/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 389/2026 1. The petitioner is a Doctor and claims to be the owner of a medical centre under the name and style of Geetanjali Medical Centre, which has been authorised/empanelled with Respondent No. 3. The petitioner submits that it has been officially authorised for providing cashless medical treatment to policyholders insured under Respondent No. 3's policies, as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Act, 1999 and Regulations made thereunder i.e., Insurance Regulatory and Development This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 13:30:55 Authority of India (Third Party Administrators- Health Services) Regulations, 2016 and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Health Insurance) Regulations, 2016. It is contended that as per the relevant policy, respondent no. 3 would grant pre-authorised approval on the basis of which the petitioner would treat patients without recovering the medical fees from them. The petitioner’s grievance is that the amount released to the petitioner by respondent no. 3 would be lesser than the pre- authorised approval, and the same would also be highly belated. 2. Various submissions have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that that respondent no.3 has repeatedly violated the relevant rules and regulations. 3. However, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Ombudsman under Rule 13 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, which will have to be first exhausted before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 13, 2026 Nc/amg This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/01/2026 at 13:30:55