The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not obligated to renew the policy after its expiry as per the policy clause, and therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the insurance company in such a scenario.

Headnote:
Renewal of Policy - Mediclaim Insurance - The court found that the insurance company was not bound to renew the policy after its expiry, as per the policy clause. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any claim for the refusal to renew the policy.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant's policy expired, and despite several representations and requests, the insurance company did not renew it. The complainant's wife fell ill during this period, incurring medical expenses, and the complainant filed a claim for compensation for the deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the insurance company was not bound to renew the policy as per the policy clause, and therefore, there was no deficiency in service. The court dismissed the appeal, directing the parties to bear their respective costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance company was obligated to renew the policy after its expiry and whether the complainant was entitled to claim compensation for the refusal to renew the policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as per the policy clause, the insurance company was not bound to renew the policy or to refuse the renewal without assigning any reasons. Therefore, no deficiency in service could be attributed to the insurance company, and the complainant was not entitled to any claim.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

ORDER

Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President— This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Emakulam in O/P. 694/ 91.

2. The complainant is the appellant. The complainant had taken a policy on 6.12.1988, which was valid for 1 year. Thereafter the complainant renewed his policy which was valid upto 5-2.1990. The grievance of the complainant is that thereafter the policy was not renewed by the opposite party inspite of several representations and request made by the complainant. In the meanwhile the complainant’s wife fell ill and he expended about Rs. 2,000/- towards the treatment of his wife. He also contended that the opposite party was liable to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the deficiency in service in not renewing his Mediclaim Insurance Policy. It is the case of the complainant that on 3.12.90, he gave a cheque to the Development Officer Mr. Suresh for renewal of the policy. But the cheque was returned without renewal. On 6-1-1991 his wife was hospitalized and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2023 for which he filed a claim before the opposite party. Opposite Party has not acted upon his claim. It is in these circumstances the complaint was filed.

3. The District Forum found that the opposite party is not bound to renew policy on its expiry of the term. It also noted clause 11 of the Policy which stated “the Company shall not be bound to renew this policy or to refuse the renewal of the policy without assigning any reasons whatsoever, the company has also a right to cancel the policy at any time provided it gives the insured 30 days notice by registered letter at the insured persons.

4. The District Forum found that in the light of this provision no deficiency in service can be attributed to the opposite party and therefore the complainant is not entitled to any claim.

5. The appellant himself appeared before us and contended that the refusal to renew the policy was unjustified and it was done arbitrary. We are afraid that we have no jurisdiction to go into the reason for not renewing the mediclaim policy of the opposite party. Deficiency of service would arise only in a case the service is availed of for consideration or promised consideration. Until a policy is issued it cannot be said that the complainant has availed on hired the service of the opposite party under the law. In the circumstances, the District Forum was justified in rejecting the claim of the complainant. We do not find any error in the order passed by the District Forum. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. However in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis