VIMAL SARDANA Vs. VIMAL SARDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) In this case, complainant and her husband had taken a joint medi -claim policy effective from 28.11.01 to 27.11.01 for Rs.1,00,000. Before expiry of the said policy, the complainant sent a cheque of Rs. 3691 dated 21.11.02 vide letter of the same date to the respondent for renewal of the policy for 2002 -03. The cheque and letter was returned by the respondent without any remark or reply. The complainant again on 26.11.02 wrote a letter to the opposite party enclosing therewith a cheque for renewal of the policy. The opposite party again returned the cheque with the reply that the policy cannot be renewed due to bad claim experience. It has been decided not to renew the policy in question. According to the complainant, since the policies were not renewed, she suffered loss of Rs.1,23,953 jointly since the complainant was hospitalized in the month of December, 2002 and paid a sum of Rs.2,84,074 to Cumballa Hill Hospital and Heart Institute at Mumbai and if the medi -claim policy had been renewed, the complainant would have been entitled to Rs.1,00,000. The complainant also alleged that her husband was treated in the same hospital and incurred expenditure of Rs. 23,953.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Biman Krishna Bose v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. and urged that the opposite party was not justified in refusing renewal of medi -claim policy. There is another latest judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manubhai Gajera and Ors. which has bearing on the controversy in this revision. The claim put forward by the claimant was allowed to the extent of Rs. 50,000 with interest and costs by the District Forum but the same was set aside in appeal by the State Commission, which is subject matter of revision in this matter.