MULJI VIRFI THAKKAR Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is for a Writ of Cer"tiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent dated 1.3.2007, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondent to renew the Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy (Individual Medi-claim Policy) No.720300/48/05/76191 dated 24.02.2006 from 00.00 hours on 25.02.2007 to midnight of 24.02.2008.

(2.) THE third petitioner herein is the son of petitioners-I and 2. THE third peti"tioner is the proposer in the Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy (Individual Medi-claim Policy) issued by the respondent herein. THE third petitioner had renewed his pol"icy periodically without any break right from 2003 to 2006. THE said policy ex"pired on 23.02.2007. THE third petitioner sent cheque in the name of the respondent seeking the renewal of the policy by payment loading 40% more than the pre"vious year on account of the claim factor as well as the age of the parents. THE said cover containing the cheque for renewal premium was returned back on 23.02.2007. THEreafter, the third peti"tioner once again presented the same on 24.02.2007 to the respondent through its Divisional Manager by registered post within the permissible grace period. THE respondent, however, replied by letter dated 23.02.2007 that the third petitioner had been advised to make alternative ar"rangements for renewal of Medi-claim Policy. On 01.03.2007, a reply was sent by the respondent enclosing the cheque therein that the third petitioner had made a harsh selection against the respondent by preferring to insure the petitioners-1 and 2 who are the aged parents, with the respondent company and insuring the less age group family members and the staff with another insurer. Under the cir"cumstances, the respondent has ex-pressed its inability to accept the remittance and returned the same to the third petitioner. THE third petitioner chal"lenges the letter of the respondent dated 01.03.2007 contending that the respon"dent's action is arbitrary and totally against the scheme of the policy. THE third petitioner states that the attitude on the part of the respondent in the matter of refusing to insure the aged parents is ar"bitrary and is totally discriminatory.

(3.) IN support of his contention, learned counsel pointed out that as per Clause 5.9 of the Mediclaim INsurance Policy, the respondent company is bound to accept the renewal for the simple rea'son that Clause 5.9 states that the respon"dent company is not bound to give notice when the policy is due for renewal. By this, there is a standing offer by the re'spondent company. The moment the in- surer remits the premium, there is an automatic acceptance disclosed. IN the circumstances, unless there is a specific reason as in the case of the original grant of the policy, the respondent company is bound to grant the renewal.