( 1 ) 1) The refusal of respondent No. 2, Oriental Insurance Company limited, to renew the Medical Claim Insurance Policy of the petitioner on the same terms and conditions as in the past has given rise to the present petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner took a Medical Claim Insurance Policy with respondent No. 2 in the year 1997 and the policy was renewed from year to year till 2002. There is only one claim made in the year 1998 which had been paid. The last renewal of the policy expired on 28. 12. 2002 and it is the contention of the petitioner that the Development Officer of respondent no. 2, Mr. Trilochan Singh, who used to take-the renewal premium every year, failed to turn up to take payment of the premium. The petitioner on 21. 02. 2003 then personally went to the office of respondent No. 2 and applied for Medical Claim Insurance Policy. However, though the policy was issued, there was an exclusion clause provided for Cardiac Arrest Disease and related diseases. Thus, the treatment relating to cardiac arrest was excluded apparently on the basis of the fact that in the year 1998, the petitioner had suffered a similar problem when payments had to be made under the policy. The petitioner vide letter dated 25. 02. 2003 called upon respondent No. 2 to remove the said condition. The petitioner in the said letter stated that there was no delay in the past by the petitioner over five years and that it was Mr. Trilochan Singh, who did not come to collect payment of the premium as in the past despite repeated reminders, but was insisting that he wanted the insurance to be done from a private company. It may be noticed that even on 21. 02. 2003 when the petitioner went to the office of respondent No. 2, a complaint had been made by the petitioner in writing about Mr. Trilochan Singh. The request of the petitioner was, however, declined by the letter dated 28. 05. 2003 stating that the petitioner ought to have visited the office of respondent No. 2 well within the stipulated time for renewal of Medical Claim Insurance Policy.

( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit, the respondents have sought to take the defence that the grant of relief to the petitioner would amount to a specific performance of an agreement, which cannot be done in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In so far as the merits are concerned, it is stated -that the petitioner approached respondent No. 2 after almost two months delay and in view thereof, fresh proposal was taken from the petitioner and was got examined from a panel doctor. It was in view thereof that the exclusion clause was included. It is stated that had the petitioner renewed the policy in time as in the past, the occasion to insert exclusion clause would not have arisen and the policy would have been renewed as per the past practice. Emphasis has also been laid on the fact that the policy condition No. 5. 9 deafly stipulates that the policy may be renewed by mutual consent and there is no requirement to give notice to a policy-holder for renewal. The factum of Mr. Trilochan Singh being the Development Officer in respondent No. 2 company is not denied, though it is denied that he used to go to get the policy renewed from time to time.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel. for the petitioner strongly relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Biman Krishna Bose v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. , (2001) 6 SCC 477. A reading of the said judgment shows that a number of aspects raised in the present matter are, in fact, no more res Integra in view of the said judgment of the Supreme court. This judgment has also been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dhingra and Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Ors. , 2003 (70) DRJ 470. The issue of maintainability of writ petition was discussed in Ashok Kumar Dhingra s case (supra) and it was noticed that in Biman Krishna Bose s case (supra), the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Cou