Yes, but doing so usually leads to being corrected by members who may believe it to be an honest mistake, or being reprimanded by the chair if it is clearly done with the intention to insult. Using a Minister's constituency title instead of their position would be seen as intentionally done, but still a perfectly legitimate form of address and in no way insulting on its own.
In general, MPs are referred to as "the honourable member" or "my honourable friend" if the addressee is a member of the same party or coalition. The style of "right honourable" is only used if the MP is a member of the Privy Council - omitting this would usually be seen as more of a faux-pas on the part of the speaker rather than an insult directed at the member in question. Other honorifics of "gallant" - for military officers; "learned" - for barristers; and "reverend" - for members of the clergy; are no longer widely used, and although some traditionalists still use this style of address, omitting these would not be seen as an insult.
Erskine May explicitly states that the use of any legitimate designation, be that the title of the member's constituency or their post is acceptable:
In order to guard against all appearance of personality in debate, no
Member other than the occupant of the Chair should refer to another by
name. Each Member must be distinguished by the office they hold, by
the place they represent or by other designations, as ‘the Leader of
the Opposition’, ‘the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs’, ‘the (right) honourable gentleman the
Member for York’, or ‘the honourable and learned Member who has just
sat down’ or, when speaking of a member of the same party, ‘my (right)
honourable friend the Member for …’.
Ignoring this advice, then, is likely to result in admonishment from the chair. The House of Commons Information Office notes that misuse of titles can often be construed as a political message:
From time to time, some have inferred political messages from the use,
or non-use, of these terms. The use of these forms of address is
long standing and was certainly the general rule at the time of the
first reliable verbatim reports over 150 years ago. The purpose of
using "Honourable" is to maintain the dignity of the House and its
Members, to make criticism and comment less direct as well as showing
respect to the Chair. A Member persistently offending against the
tradition by using "you" or a Member's name is likely to be corrected
by the Speaker and to be interrupted by shouts of "order" from other
Members. Members do, however, sometimes inadvertently omit
"Honourable": this often goes unchallenged but is always corrected
by Hansard.
Probably the most common example of this is the use of "the right honourable Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip" to describe the current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. This is rather more of a mouthful than "the Prime Minister", and therefore is clearly a deliberate choice of words. This phrasing is most often used by members of opposing parties - for example by David Linden and Alison Thewliss (SNP) and Toby Perkins (Labour) - but is also used by members of the government, for example, Michael Gove, so whether this phrasing is always intended as an insult is doubtful.
A more famous example of inappropriate address was by Boris Johnson himself during his tenure as Foreign Secretary in 2018, when he referred to Emily Thornberry as "the noble and learned Lady, the Baroness, whatever it is—I cannot remember what it is". This was regarded as sexist, and he was reprimanded by the Speaker:
First, we do not name-call in this Chamber. Secondly—I am dealing with
the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman will listen and benefit from
listening—we do not address people by the titles of their spouses. The
shadow Foreign Secretary has a name, and it is not Lady something. We
know what her name is. It is inappropriate and frankly sexist to speak
in those terms, and I am not having it in this Chamber. That is the
end of the matter. No matter how senior a Member, that parlance is not
legitimate. It will not be allowed, and it will be called out.
This wasn't always the case though, as in 2017, Thornberry was also on the other side of the Speaker's admonishment, and Johnson's use of her title of 'Lady Nugee' was accepted without accusations of sexism.
Thornberry: I have not asked the question yet, Boris. Which is it: the
Telegraph article or the Florence speech—the lion roars or the lion
wants to stop this malarkey? Apart from his own fading ambitions, what
exactly does the Foreign Secretary believe in?
Speaker: The right hon. Lady should not refer to the Foreign Secretary
by his first name. It is rather vulgar.
Thornberry: I do apologise, Mr Speaker.
Speaker: Not the name, but merely the mention of it. It is unseemly
and insufficiently reverential.
Johnson: I would not dream of calling the right hon. Lady by any name
other than Lady Nugee.
Finally, I think the most common form of inappropriate address usually comes in the form of erroneously addressing honourable members as right honourable members, rather than the other way around. For example, the following exchange:
Fabian Hamilton (Labour): The right hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt (Conservative))—sorry, the hon. and gallant Member; he
is not right honourable—
Sir Henry Bellingham (Chair): Not yet.
Hamilton: Not yet; I am sure he will be very soon.
