https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113871 Rule 13 of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 was construed purposively to advance the remedial object of the insurance grievance framework. The expression "any person" was held broad enough, in context, to include a company that is a policy-holder, and the definitions of "insured person" and "personal lines" in Rule 4 were not read as restricting Rule 13's plain scope. Applying harmonious construction with the parent statute and the General Clauses Act, the Court treated the company's complaint as maintainable and held that the Insurance Ombudsman had jurisdiction to entertain it. en-us Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113871 Rule 13 of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 was construed purposively to advance the remedial object of the insurance grievance framework. The expression "any person" was held broad enough, in context, to include a company that is a policy-holder, and the definitions of "insured person" and "personal lines" in Rule 4 were not read as restricting Rule 13's plain scope. Applying harmonious construction with the parent statute and the General Clauses Act, the Court treated the company's complaint as maintainable and held that the Insurance Ombudsman had jurisdiction to entertain it. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113871