Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1683/2023 of ANANTA DAS Vs THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN AND ANR on 21 July 2026
GAHC010270352022 2026:GAU-AS:10095 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1683/2023 ANANTA DAS S/O- RAMESWAR DAS, R/O- BEHARBARI, RANGBONG PATH, P.O. AND P.S.- HENGERABARI, PIN- 781006, DIST.- KAMRUP(M) VERSUS THE INSURANCE
GAHC010270352022
2026:GAU-AS:10095
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1683/2023
ANANTA DAS
S/O- RAMESWAR DAS,
R/O- BEHARBARI, RANGBONG PATH,
P.O. AND P.S.- HENGERABARI,
PIN- 781006, DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
VERSUS
THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN AND ANR
ASSAM, MANIPUR, MIZORAM, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, NAGALAND AND
TRIPURA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT OFFICE
OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDMAN JEEVA NIVESH, 5TH FLOOR, NEAR PAN BAZAR, OVER BRIDGE, S.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI.
2:ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
SERVICE VERTICAL CENTRE
SASWATA BUILDING
B. BARUAH ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781007
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. SJ Sarmah Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. RD Mazumdar For respondent No.2
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
22.07.2026
Heard Mr. SJ Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. RD Mazumdar, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 19.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner’s complaint was rejected on the basis of the opinion of the respondent No.1 that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent No.2.
3. This Court has duly perused the observations and recommendations so mentioned in the impugned Award dated 19.07.2022 and disputed questions of fact arise as to whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent No.2.
4. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to approach the Consumer Forum or even the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, if so advised.
5. Taking into account the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
6. Before parting with the records, this Court makes it clear that this Court has not entertained the writ petition on account of disputed questions of fact and under such circumstances, the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the writ petitioner to approach the Consumer Forum or the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, if so advised.
7. This Court also takes note of that the petitioner immediately upon the passing of the impugned Award on 19.07.2022 has approached this Court by filing the writ petition on 22.12.2022. Thereupon this Court had issued notice. Taking into account that the petitioner has been bona fidely litigating the present proceedings, the period during which the instant writ petition is pending i.e. w.e.f. 22.12.2022 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation.
8. Writ petition accordingly stands closed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant