IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 450 of 2010
Niraj Maheshwari ... ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd.& Ors..... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar
For the Respondents : Mr. D.C. Ghose
Order No. 07 ------ Dated 07th June, 2011
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated
18.05.2010
, by which, the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge after observing that admittedly
mediclaim policy of the petitioner was expired on 18th July, 2004
and after about six months the petitioner sent a blank cheque
along with a letter requesting for renewal of his mediclaim policy.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in
the case of Biman Krishna Bose Vs. United Insurance
Company Ltd. reported in {2001} 6 J.T. 125, the Insurance
Company had a right to renew the policy retrospectively,
therefore, the Insurance Company should have renewed the
policy. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that vide
annexure-7 the Insurance Company rejected the petitioner’s
claim because of his ailment which they have found as old one
and, therefore, on this ground the Insurance Company could not
have rejected the prayer for renewal of the policy.
We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant and perused annexure 7 as well as considered the
judgment rendered in the case of Biman Krishna Bose
(Supra). It is not in dispute that petitioner’s mediclaim policy
was expired on 18th July, 2004 and according to the petitioner he
was misled by the agent of the Insurance Company. Therefore,
he could not get the policy renewed in time and for that he made
a complaint against the agent to the company and then he sent a
blank cheque and a letter to the company for renewal of the
insurance policy. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the
petitioner has sought renewal of the policy on the basis of an
allegation against the agent, who was not a party in the writ
petition or before us.
Be that as it may, the policy can be renewed if the renewal
is sought in time and admittedly in the present case, the policy
ought to have been renewed within a period of seven days from
the date of expiry of the policy and that has not been done and
application for renewal of policy has been given after six months
from the date of expiry of the mediclaim policy. In the case of
Biman Krishna Bose (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
considered the issue which has no relevance to the facts of the
present case. In the said case, it has been held that the applicant
applied within time for renewal of the Insurance Policy and
rejection of the prayer for renewal by the Insurance Company
was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court and, therefore, the policy
stand renewed. So far as other conditions which was sought to be
invoked was that in Clause of exclusion which provided for pre-
existing decease cannot not be covered under the fresh policy
and in that situation, the matter was considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the
consequence of such Clause in the matter of renewal of policy
and held that this will have disastrous effect of wrongful refusal
of renewal of the insurance policy, the mischief and harm cannot
be remedied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the
difference between the renewal of the policy and a fresh policy
for the same risk coverage.
Here in this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner
applied for renewal of the policy after expiry of the period of
limitation and it is not a case that he applied within a period of
limitation so as to cover his pre-existing decease. It is a case
when the contract came to an end by the lapse of time and
renewal was not sought well in time, therefore, the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief and the case of Biman Krishna Bose
(Supra) has no relevance with this case.
In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal, which
is accordingly dismissed.
(Prakash Tatia, A.C J)
(Jaya Roy, J)
Alankar/Sudhir/-