TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charges for her treatment to the hospital. On 30-8-1991, the appellant lodged a claim for Rs. 8,243 with the insurance company along with necessary papers. Despite repeated requests, the claim was not honoured, with the result the appellant approached the District Consumer Grievance [Disputes?] Redressal Forum (District Forum, Calcutta) but the said complaint was rejected. On appeal, before the State Commission, the order of the District Forum was set aside and direction was issued to the respondent, insurance company to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 8,243. The insurance company thereafter went in revision before the National Consumer [Disputes] Redressal Commission which allowed the revision and set aside the order of the State Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant, Biman Krishna Bose, has appeared in person. He argued that the High Court even after setting aside the order refusing to renew the policy, was not justified in directing the appellant to take fresh mediclaim policy. According to the appellant, by the said order of the High Court, he has been placed at a great disadvantageous position. The appellant referred to the exclusion clause of the policy taken out by him. Relevant clauses 2.1 and 2.1.14 of the mediclaim policy run as under : "2.1. The company shall not be liable to make any payment under this policy in respect of any expenses whatsoever incurred by any insured person in connection with or in respect of . . . ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iness in India, under the supervision and control of GIC. Excepting the acquiring companies, no other company in private sector has a right and privilege to carry on general insurance business in India and to that extent, the acquiring companies have a monopoly over such business. In such a situation, acquiring companies have the trappings of 'the State' being other authorities under article 12 of the Constitution of India. The acquiring companies, thus, being 'the State' under article 12 are expected to act fairly and reasonably. In the present case, what we find is that the respondent-insurance company refused to renew the insurance policy of the appellant on the ground of his past conduct. The past conduct attributed is that the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the order of the respondent-company refusing to renew the mediclaim policy of the appellant was unfair and arbitrary. 4. Coming to the next question whether the appellant's policy was required to be renewed with effect from the date when it fell due for renewal, the view taken by the High Court is that an insurance policy cannot be renewed for the period which has already expired. It is not disputed that original mediclaim policy taken out by the appellant provided for its renewal. It is also not disputed that the appellant applied for renewal of the insurance policy well in time and sent a cheque towards its premium. The respondent-company has not challenged the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icy on extraneous consideration, thereby depriving the claim of insured for treatment of diseases which have appeared during the relevant time and further deprive the insured for all time to come to cover those diseases under the insurance policy by virtue of the exclusion clause. This being the disastrous effect of wrongful refusal of renewal of the insurance policy, the mischief and harm done to the insured must be remedied. We are, therefore, of the view that once it is found that the act of an insurance company was arbitrary in refusing to renew the policy, the policy is required to be renewed with effect from the date when it fell due for its renewal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company argued that since the a....