DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks a direction upon the second respondent to supply a copy of the survey report.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had entered into a contract of insurance and an incident covered under such insurance having happened, a claim was lodged. A survey was conducted. The petitioner is entitled to the survey report. He submits that, the survey report is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002. Regulation 9(5) thereof requires an insurance to make over a copy of the survey report. The second respondent having failed to provide such survey report, the petitioner has approached the Writ Court. The writ petition is maintainable to enforce a statutory obligation. The second respondent has failed to discharge its statutory obligation. In support of his contention that, a writ petition is maintainable against the second respondent, he relies upon (2008) 10 SCC 404 (United India Insurance Company Limited v. Manu Bhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera and Ors.) and AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3202 (Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan and Ors.) .
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the second respondent submits that, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The second respondent is a private insurance company. The mere fact that, the second respondent is guided or governed by the Regulations of 2002 will not make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relies upon (2003) 10 SCC 733 (Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Ors.) . Referring to the conduct of the petitioner, he submits that, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. The petitioner had invoked the provisions for arbitration by a writing prior to the filing of the writ petition. This fact has been suppressed in the writ petition. The letter invoking the arbitration clause has, however, been annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner. Moreover, even if the Regulations of 2002 is applied, then also, the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy. Therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.;