In the case of Mohit Kumar & Anr. vs. Office of The Insurance Ombudsman & Ors., decided on November 7, 2023, by the Delhi High Court, the petitioners—a married couple—had purchased the Reliance Travel Care Policy-Corporate Short Term for their planned trip from Delhi to Italy. Anticipating the escalating COVID-19 situation and following the Government of India’s advisory dated February 26, they canceled their bookings and subsequently filed an insurance claim, which was denied by the insurer on the grounds that cancellations due to COVID-19 were not covered under the policy. Their appeal to the Insurance Ombudsman was also rejected.tclindia.in
Issue: The central question was whether the insurer’s rejection of the claim, based on the assertion that the trip cancellation due to a government advisory related to COVID-19 was not covered under the policy terms, was justified.
Judgment: The Delhi High Court held that the writ petition was maintainable, emphasizing that when an insurer denies a claim beyond the specific terms of the policy, such matters can be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court interpreted the term ‘Advisory’ in its ordinary sense, distinguishing it from ‘Regulation’ or ‘Prohibition.’ It concluded that the government’s advisory did not amount to a prohibition or regulation that would exclude coverage under the policy. Consequently, the court set aside the decisions of both the Insurance Ombudsman and the insurance company, directing the insurer to honor the petitioners’ claim with an interest of 6% per annum from the date the claim became due. tclindia.in