MOHAMED SHAFI vs THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
1
2026:KER:85382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TH
TUESDAY, THE 10 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 17547 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
MOHAMED SHAFI
AGED 49 YEARS
PARUTHIKKUNNAN,S/O. MOHAMED HAJI, LAVERNA HOUSE, VALAKKULAM
P.O., MALAPPURAM KERALA ., PIN - 676508
BY ADV SHRI.HARIKUMAR G. (GOPINATHAN NAIR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN
OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, 1ST FLOOR, RESERVE BANK OF
INDIA BUILDING, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695033
2 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, GROUND FLOOR, G K ARCADE,
PALARIVATTAM BY-PASS JUNCTION KOCHI, PIN - 682028
3 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER 270, DN ROAD FORT, MUMBAI ., PIN - 400001
BY ADV SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.11.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
2
2026:KER:85382
CR
JUDGMENT
th
Dated this the 10 November, 2026
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P11
Order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Respondent
No.1/Banking Ombudsman under the Reserve Bank –
Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Scheme’). As per Ext.P11 Order, the Complaint
submitted by the Petitioner against the Respondent Nos.2 &
3/Bank was closed invoking Clause 14(9)(a) of the Scheme,
treating the matter as resolved. The Respondent No.2 is the
Kochi Branch and the Respondent No.3 is the Head Office of
the Standard Chartered Bank.
2. The Petitioner is an individual customer of the
Respondent/Bank. According to the Petitioner, he was induced
by the officials of the Respondent No.2 to subscribe to multiple
Life Insurance Policies on the assurance that the recurring
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
3
2026:KER:85382
premium obligations would be serviced through returns
generated from mutual fund investments maintained with the
Bank and that any shortfall would be borne by the Bank itself.
The Respondent No.2 issued Ext.P1 Communication dated
01.11.2024 to the Petitioner in confirmation of the agreed terms
of the policies and investment management. Relying on the said
assurance of the Respondent/Bank, the Petitioner subscribed
to eight insurance policies between March, 2023 and October,
2024. The arrangement was initially acted upon by the
Respondent/Bank. But, in 2025, the Respondent/Bank
compelled the Petitioner to pay the renewal premium from his
own funds, which were subsequently reimbursed only partially,
leaving an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs unpaid. Later, acknowledging
its liability, the Bank credited an amount of Rs.17 Lakhs in the
account of the Petitioner in October, 2025 towards subsequent
premium payments. The Respondent/Bank again failed to
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
4
2026:KER:85382
honour its commitments in March, 2026, compelling the
Petitioner to liquidate investments and incur financial loss, tax
implications and disruption of his financial planning. Hence, the
Petitioner approached the Respondent No.1 by filing Ext.P8
Complaint under the Scheme seeking redressal, including
enforcement of commitments and compensation. It is the case
of the Petitioner that during the pendency of the Complaint, the
Respondent No.1 issued an advisory directing limited
reimbursement of Rs.5 Lakhs and compensation of Rs.1 Lakh,
which was unilaterally credited by the Respondent/Bank to the
Petitioner's account without his consent or knowledge.
Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 proceeded to close the
Complaint under Clause 14(9)(a) of the Scheme, treating the
matter as ‘resolved’. Hence, the Petitioner filed the above Writ
Petition challenging Ext.P11 Order and seeking a direction to
the Respondent No.1 to restore and adjudicate Ext.P8
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
5
2026:KER:85382
Complaint on merits, in strict compliance with Clause 15 of the
Scheme, after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioner and to pass a reasoned and speaking
Order and to declare that the unilateral credit of the amounts by
the Respondent/Bank without the acceptance or consent of the
Petitioner cannot be treated as a ‘resolution’ or ‘settlement’ of
the Complaint within the meaning of Clause 14(9)(a) of the
Scheme.
3. The Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed a Counter Affidavit opposing
the prayers in the Writ Petition. The Petitioner filed a Reply
Affidavit answering the contentions raised in the Counter
Affidavit.
4.
In the Counter Affidavit, the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 contended,
inter alia , that Ext.P1 Confirmation Letter was drafted at the
Petitioner's instance and issued by a former employee of the
Respondent/Bank in collusion with the Petitioner without any
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
6
2026:KER:85382
authority and approval by the Respondent/Bank. The Petitioner
has suppressed material information from this Court, including
his email dated 05.11.2024, whereby he instructed Mr. Gireesh
M.G., the former Branch Manager of Respondent No.2, to print
the draft prepared by the Petitioner on Respondent/Bank’s
letterhead and executed it. The eight ICICI Prudential Life
Insurance Policies were independently subscribed by the
Petitioner long before Ext.P1 Confirmation Letter. The Petitioner
had been paying premiums for the policies in the ordinary
course prior to Ext.P1. Rs.10 Lakhs allegedly reimbursed by the
Respondent/Bank was in fact transferred by one Ms. Geetha, a
customer of Respondent/Bank, and not by the
Respondent/Bank. Rs.17 Lakhs credited by the
Respondent/Bank on 17.10.2025 was a service gesture made
without any admission of liability, pending investigation. The
Respondent/Bank has already paid Rs.6 Lakhs to the Petitioner
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
7
2026:KER:85382
in compliance with the Banking Ombudsman’s Advisory prior to
the impugned Order and hence the Petitioner cannot now
challenge the said Order after receiving the benefit out of the
same. The Writ Petition is not maintainable, as the Petitioner is
having alternative efficacious remedies before the Civil Court
and Consumer Forums, as the Complaint raises serious
disputed questions of facts which require evidence and cross-
examination which could not be adjudicated in a Writ Petition,
as the Respondent/Bank is a Private Bank, as the enforcement
of private contractual obligations through Writ Petition is
untenable, as the Petitioner has approached this Court with
unclean hands having suppressed material facts regarding the
genesis of the Confirmation Letter and as the Petitioner has not
deliberately impleaded ICICI Prudential Life, despite it being a
proper and necessary party.
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
8
2026:KER:85382
5.
I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Adv. Irene Babu,
and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3,
Sri.Thomas P. Kuruvila.
6. The Counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to Clause
14(9)(a) of the Scheme which provides that a Complaint would
be deemed to be resolved when it has been settled by the
Regulated Entity with the Complainant upon the intervention of
the Ombudsman. The learned Counsel pointed out that
‘settlement’ is defined under Clause 3(1)(k) of the Scheme as
an agreement reached by the parties to the Complaint by
facilitation or conciliation or mediation, as per the provisions of
the Scheme. The learned Counsel contended that in the
absence of a mutual settlement, the Ombudsman does not have
any power or authority to treat the Complaint as resolved under
Clause 14(9)(a). Clause 15 (1)(b) of the Scheme mandates that
in the event of the matter not getting resolved under Clause
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
9
2026:KER:85382
14(9) based on records placed, the Ombudsman shall pass an
Award after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard
to both the parties. The impugned Order is not appealable under
Clause 17 of the Scheme. The Petitioner’s grievance remains
subsisting and on account of Ext.P11, the Petitioner is left
remediless. The Ombudsman ought to have ordered
reimbursement of the premium already paid by the Petitioner;
ordered the Respondent/Bank to service future premium; and
ordered compensation for the financial loss and mental agony
suffered by the Petitioner. The learned Counsel concluded her
arguments praying to set aside Ext.P11 Order and to direct the
Ombudsman to dispose of Ext.P8 Complaint in accordance with
the procedure laid down in Clause 15 of the Scheme.
7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 contended that the Banking Ombudsman considered
the matter in detail, arrived at a conclusion and directed
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
10
2026:KER:85382
payment of Rs.6 Lakhs to the Complainant, which consists of
Rs.5 Lakhs towards the disputed premium and Rs.1 Lakh
towards mental agony. The said payment was made on
25.03.2026 pursuant to the Advisory issued by the Ombudsman
on 23.03.2026. The Respondent/Bank paid the amount as per
the Advisory to settle the issue forever. Even before the
Complaint, the Respondent/Bank had paid an amount of Rs.17
Lakhs to the Petitioner as a service gesture even though the
Respondent/Bank was not liable to pay the said amount,
treating the Petitioner as a valued customer. The learned
Counsel invited my attention to Ext.R2(f) to substantiate that the
credit of two 5 Lakhs on 29.04.2025 and 27.05.2025 was not
made by the Respondent/Bank, but it was made by one Ms. T.
Geetha. The contention of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner
subscribed to eight policies on the basis of Ext.P1 assurance
given by the Bank. Ext.P1 is dated 01.11.2024. But it is clear
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
11
2026:KER:85382
from paragraph No.6 of the Writ Petition itself that all the eight
policies were subscribed before the date of Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is the
result of a collusion between the Petitioner and the then
Manager of the Respondent No.2. The eight policies were
subscribed by the Petitioner himself from ICICI Prudential Life
Insurance and the Bank acted only as an agent. The
Respondent/Bank has not taken any responsibility whatsoever
to service the premium. Ext.R2(e) Email would reveal that the
then Branch Manager of the Respondent No.2 issued Ext.P1 as
dictated by the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by
Ext.P11 Order, the Petitioner can agitate the same before the
Civil Court or Consumer Forum where the parties can raise their
contentions and adduce evidence in support of the same. The
present dispute could not be adjudicated in a Writ Petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, the
Petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P11 Order after receiving the
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
12
2026:KER:85382
amount of Rs.6 Lakhs ordered by the Banking Ombudsman.
When the Petitioner has received the said amount of Rs.6 Lakhs
ordered by the Banking Ombudsman, the Banking Ombudsman
is perfectly justified in closing the Complaint as resolved under
Clause 14(9)(a) of the Scheme. There is nothing to be
reconsidered by the Banking Ombudsman as the Banking
Ombudsman has elaborately considered the contentions of the
parties and rendered Ext.P11 Order. The learned Counsel
concluded his arguments praying to dismiss the Writ Petition.
8. I have considered the rival contentions with reference to the
provisions under the Scheme.
9. Even though both parties raised contentions touching the merits
of the claim of the Petitioner, this Court is not justified to
consider the same in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, since the contentions are based on
disputed questions of fact.
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
13
2026:KER:85382
10.
Even though the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 &
3 contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, I find that
the Writ Petition challenging the Order of the Banking
Ombudsman is maintainable, when the same is not appealable,
to see whether the Banking Ombudsman has acted in full
compliance with the provisions under the Scheme.
11. It is true that an amount of Rs.6 Lakhs is credited in the account
of the Petitioner pursuant to the Advisory issued by the Banking
Ombudsman prior to the passing of the impugned Order. But
the said credit of the amount was not on the basis of any
consensus between the parties. The Writ Petition could not be
treated as not maintainable on the mere reason of the credit of
the amount in the account of the Petitioner made by the
Respondent/Bank without the consent of the Petitioner on the
basis of the impugned Order or any Order prior to the impugned
Order.
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
14
2026:KER:85382
12.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that
the Petitioner has become remediless to agitate his grievance
on passing Ext.P11 Order, though his grievances are still
subsisting. The Scheme is a statutory Scheme framed by the
Reserve Bank of India under Section 35A of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949, Section 45L of the Reserve Bank of India
Act, 1934, and Section 18 of the Payment and Settlement
Systems Act, 2007, and hence the Ombudsman appointed
under the Scheme is a statutory Authority. Clause 14 deals with
Resolution of Complaints. Clause 15 deals with the Award by
the Ombudsman. Clause 16 deals with the Rejection of a
Complaint. Clause 15 comes into play when the Complaint is
not resolved under Clause 14 or rejected under Clause 16.
13. Sub-Clause (7) of Clause 15 provides that the Award passed
under Sub-Clause (1) shall lapse and be of no effect unless the
Complainant furnishes a letter of acceptance of the Award in full
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
15
2026:KER:85382
and final settlement of the claim to the Regulated Entity
concerned, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
the copy of the Award. Sub-Clause (8) of Clause 15 provides
that the Regulated Entity shall comply with the Award and
intimate compliance to the Ombudsman within 30 days from the
date of receipt of the letter of acceptance from the Complainant,
in the absence of any Appeal by the Regulated Entity. Sub-
Clauses (7) & (8) of Clause 15 would reveal that even after
passing of the Award, it is at the option of the Complainant to
accept or refuse the Award. The Award shall lapse and be of no
effect, if the Complainant does not furnish a letter of acceptance
within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the Award.
The purpose of the Scheme is to provide an expeditious and
cost-effective remedy for resolving the grievances of the
customers of the Banks. If the claim in the Complaint is rejected
under Clause 16 or if the Award passed by the Ombudsman
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
16
2026:KER:85382
under Clause 15 is not acceptable to the Complainant, it is open
to him to agitate his claim through the normal remedies
available to him. But in the case of resolution of the Complaint
by settlement under Clause 14 or acceptance of the Award
under Clause 15, the Complainant cannot re-agitate his claim
before any other Forum.
14. Clause 14(9)(a) of the Scheme provides that the Complaint
would be deemed to be resolved when it has been settled by
the Regulated Entity with the Complainant upon the intervention
of the Ombudsman. The term ‘settlement’ is defined under
Clause 3(1)(k) to mean an agreement reached by the parties to
the complaint by facilitation or conciliation or mediation, as per
the provisions of the Scheme. In the present case, there is no
agreement reached by the parties to the Complaint either by
themselves as provided under Sub-Clause 8 of Clause 14 or
upon the intervention of the Ombudsman as provided under
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
17
2026:KER:85382
Clause 14(9)(a). When there is no agreement reached by the
parties upon the intervention of the Ombudsman, the
Ombudsman cannot close the Complaint as resolved under
Clause 14(9)(a) of the Scheme. As per Clause 15 of the
Scheme, if the Complaint is not rejected under Clause 16 or not
disposed of under Clauses 14(4) or 14(9), the Ombudsman is
bound to pass an Award based on the records placed and after
affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the
parties. In the present case, no Award is passed under Clause
15 of the Scheme.
15.
The Banking Ombudsman issued an Advisory to pay a total
amount of Rs.6 Lakhs to the Petitioner on 23.03.2026. The Bank
complied with the Advisory within two days on 25.03.2026 and
the Ombudsman passed Ext.P11 Order treating the Complaint
as resolved on the next day on 26.03.2026. There was no
opportunity for the Petitioner to express its acceptance or non-
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
18
2026:KER:85382
acceptance of the Advisory. Only if the Advisory is furnished to
the Complainant and the Complainant accepts the Advisory, it
could be treated as settled upon the intervention of the
Ombudsman as provided under Clause 14(9)(a) of the Scheme.
The payment of the amount by the Bank as per the Advisory
issued by the Ombudsman before its acceptance by the
Complainant could not be termed as settlement and it will create
unnecessary complications when the Complainant does not
subsequently accept the Advisory. Banks need to pay the
amount directed in the Advisory only if the Advisory is accepted
by the Complainant. As rightly contended by the Counsel for the
Petitioner, the Petitioner has become remediless to agitate his
grievance on passing Ext.P11 Order, treating the Complaint as
resolved under Clause 14(9)(a). The Ombudsman acted
illegally in treating the Complaint as resolved under Clause
14(9)(a) of the Scheme. Since the Advisory issued by the
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
19
2026:KER:85382
Ombudsman is not acceptable to the Petitioner, the
Ombudsman is bound to dispose of the Complaint by passing
an Award in accordance with Clause 15 of the Scheme.
16. Hence, I allow this Writ Petition by issuing Writ of Certiorari
setting aside Ext.P11 Order of the Respondent No.1/Banking
Ombudsman and directing the Respondent No.1/Banking
Ombudsman to dispose of Ext.P8 Complaint by passing an
Award in accordance with Clause 15 of the Scheme within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. The payment of Rs.6 Lakhs made by the
Respondent Bank as per the Advisory dated 23.03.2026 will be
subject to the final Award passed by the Ombudsman.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Jma/shg
Judgment reserved Nil
Dictation in open Court 10.11.2026
Judgment signed/Pronounced 10.11.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 10.11.2026
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
20
2026:KER:85382
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 17547 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION OF AGREED TERMS
FOR ICICI PRUDENTIAL POLICIES AND INVESTMENT DATED
01.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS DATED
29.04.2025 ALONGWITH TRAIL MAILS
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
28.05.2025 ALONGWITH TRAIL MAILS
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.09.2025 SENT
VIA EMAIL ALONGWITH TRAIL MAILS
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
17.10.2025 ALONGWITH TRAIL MAILS
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.01.2026
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.HM/AA/2025-26/0513
DATED 16.02.2026 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.02.2026 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
WITHOUT ANNEXURES
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 26.02.2026
BEARING NO. RBI/CMS/N202526015010697/ 2025-26
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
19.03.2026 ALONGWITH TRAIL MAILS
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2026 BEARING
NO. RBI/CMS/N202526015010697/ 2025-26
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R 2(a) True copy of the power of attorney dated October
24, 2024
EXHIBIT R2(b) True copy of policy no.F 1290846 dated 08-03-2023
in favou rof the Petitioner
EXHIBIT R2(c) True copy of policy no.F 3989759 dated 31-03-2024
in favou rof the Petitioner
EXHIBIT R2(d) True copy of the Petitioner’s email dated November
05, 2024
EXHIBIT R2(e) True copies of the available email correspondence
between the Petitioner and Mr. Gireesh
EXHIBIT R2(f) True copies of the statement of accounts
CNR : KLHC010373252026
WP(C) No.17547/2026
21
2026:KER:85382
evidencing transfer by Ms. Geetha on April 29, 2025
and May 27, 2025
EXHIBIT R2(g) True copy of the system extract for the advisory
issued by the Respondent No. 1
EXHIBIT R2(h) True copy of the bank statement evidencing payment
of INR 6,00,000/- to the Petitioner’s account