JUBILEE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN (PUBLIC) S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

JUBILEE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN (PUBLIC) S.127(1)(b)---Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act (XIV of 2013), Ss.14 & 24---Surrendering of insurance policies and seeking a refund---Representation before the President---Scope of jurisdiction and powers of President stated---Federal Insurance Ombudsman, jurisdiction of---Small Dispute Resolution Committee (SDRC)---Scope of its mandate and nature discussed for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction of Federal Insurance Ombudsman---Brief facts of the case were that the petitioner company issued two insurance policies to respondent No.2 (Policy holder) and due to financial difficulties the respondent No.2 later sought to surrender the policies and requested a refund which the petitioner company refused, constraining the respondent No.2 to approach the Small Dispute Resolution Committee (SDRC), which disposed of the complaint on stating that the enhanced refund offer by the petitioner company was reasonable---Respondent No.2 being dissatisfied then filed complaint with the Federal Insurance Ombudsman (FIO), who dismissed the same citing lack of jurisdiction under S. 127(1)(b) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 ("Ordinance 2000"), due to prior resolution by SDRC---Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed a representation before the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under S. 14 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 ("Act 2013"), whereby, the President set aside the FIO's dismissal and directed the petitioner company to refund Rs.1,650,000 within 30 days, constraining the petitioner company to challenge that decision through the present Constitutional petition, thereby alleging lack of jurisdiction and legal error---The pivotal question for determination before the High Court was "whether the Respondent No.1 (The President) had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the representation against the FIO's order declining jurisdiction under S. 127(1)(b) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000"---Held: The representation was filed before the President/respondent No.1 under S. 14 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 ("Act 2013")---The powers of the respondent No.1/President under S. 14 of the Act 2013 were expansive and allowed review of the "decision, order, findings or recommendations" of an Ombudsman---Any person or party aggrieved by such actions could file a representation to the President within 30 days---Section 24 of the Act 2013 also gave the said enactment primacy over competing provisions of the law---It could be safely concluded that the forum outlined, vide the Act 2013 for deciding representation against the FIO's order was the President/respondent No.1---Moreover, as regards the question viz Federal Insurance Ombudsman (FIO), dismissing the complaint citing lack of jurisdiction under S. 127(1)(b) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 due to the prior resolution by SDRC, from the plain reading of S. 127(1)(b) of the Ordinance 2000 it was clear that the bar applied only where the matter was sub judice or had been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction---The FIO declined jurisdiction on the misconceived assumption that the SDRC's recommendation constituted a binding decision---Section 127(1)(b) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 imposed a specific bar on the jurisdiction of the Federal Insurance Ombudsman only where the subject matter of the complaint was sub judice before a court of competent jurisdiction, tribunal, or board---The Small Dispute Resolution Committee (SDRC), operating under the auspices of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), was not a judicial forum, tribunal, or board vested with adjudicatory powers---Its mandate was limited to facilitating amicable settlements and offering non-binding recommendations---Its proceedings did not partake the character of a trial nor resulted in enforceable judgments unless voluntarily acted upon by the parties---The FIO, therefore, erred in treating the SDRC's recommendation as a binding adjudication and in declining to entertain the complaint due to a misapplication of S.127(1)(b) of the Ordinance 2000---This misunderstanding of the law constituted a jurisdictional defect, and the President acting under S. 14 of the Act ibid, rightly exercised supervisory jurisdiction to correct the matter---The respondent No.1 (President) acted well within the bounds of the law, and no case for High Court's interference was made out---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

JUBILEE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN (PUBLIC) S — 2025 CLD 827 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD