NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, JODHPUR Vs. CHANDAN MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 30.04.2010 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, District Barmer, whereby, the dispute filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted and the petitioner-Company has been directed to accept the premium of the policy and renew the same for the period 13.10.2005 to 12.10.2006 and pay a sum of Rs. 21,540/- to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application, though titled as under Section 22A, essentially under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 ('the Act'), inter alia, with the averments that the respondents were holding joint medi-claim insurance policy from the petitioner Company for over 13-14 years and the same was renewed for the period 13.10.2004 to 12.10.2005; before the period of policy was over, on 10.10.2005, the respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner Company with cash amount of Rs. 7,401/- and sought renewal of the policy, which was refused; where after, the respondent No. 1 gave a telegram on 11.10.2005 calling upon the petitioner Company to bear the responsibility and where after on 12.10.2005 sent a cheque dated 10.10.2005 for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- by registered post acknowledgement due along with a letter calling upon the petitioner Company to renew the policy for the period 13.10.2005 to 12.10.2006, which envelope was received back with the report of refusal; where after, respondent No. 1 sent communications dated 26.10.2005 to the petitioner Company, which were not replied and again notice along with amount of premium were sent on 03.03.2006 seeking renewal; it was claimed that respondent No. 1 fell ill and had to undergo treatment and spent a sum of Rs. 19,750/-; it was prayed that the petitioner Company be directed to renew the policy for the period 13.10.2005 to 12.10.2006 and for further period as and when the same fell due for renewal and pay a sum of Rs. 21,540/- along with expenses.

(3.) The petitioner Company filed reply and except for issuance of policy denied the averments made in the complaint.