( 1 ) THESE three Letters Patent Appeals have been directed against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge passed on 8th August 2003, allowing the three petitions from which these appeals arise, while the Special Civil Application No. 9425 of 2002 has been filed for a direction on the respondents - insurance companies not to exclude the diseases contracted by the petitioner No. 2 during the period of mediclaim policy, which was renewed from time to time, and not to load the premium, as was sought to be done, and to renew the mediclaim policies of the petitioner No. 2 and 3.

( 2 ) ALL the matters relate to mediclaim insurance policy and revolve around the question, whether the insurer has absolute right to cancel the contract of mediclaim insurance or to refuse renewal of the mediclaim policy and have been argued together by the learned counsel appearing for all the parties. Brief Facts and Pleadings :

( 3 ) THE Letters Patent Appeal No. 1028 of 2003, which arises from Special Civil Application No. 11844 of 2002, in which a direction was sought for setting aside the action of the insurer (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) in seeking to exclude certain diseases as per the communication dated 3rd October 2002 addressed by the Divisional Manager of the insurance company to the insured, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. A direction was sought on the insurer to renew the mediclaim policy with effect from 3rd October 2002 and to settle all the claims of medical dues covered by the insurance company as per the terms of the existing insurance policy. 3. 1 in that case, the petitioner had applied for a mediclaim insurance policy for the first time in 1990 for a sum of Rs. 90,000=00. The sum insured under the policy was thereafter revised to Rs. 3 lakhs from 1993-94. The policy was being renewed from time to time on the regular payment of the premium amount by the insured and was lastly renewed on 4th October 2001. The insured requested for a further renewal by his letter dated 9th September 2002 forwarding the bankers cheque of the premium amount to the insurer, which was well ahead of the date of 3rd October 2002 on which the existing policy was to end. A reminder was sent by the insured on 17-9-2002 requesting the insurer to renew the policy, followed by a legal notice dated 27-9-2002. Thereafter, on 30th September 2002, the insurer addressed a letter to the insured that, due to "high claim experience", the policy will be renewed by loading of 300% premium and the insured was accordingly required to issue a cheque for the revised premium. The insured accordingly deposited the amount of the revised premium by cash on 1-10-2002 being 300% premium for which a receipt was issued by the insurer on 1-10-2002. The regular premium as well as extra premium were thus paid by the insured in time i. e. before the end of the term of the existing policy. However, thereafter, on 3rd October 2002, the insurer issued a letter on the insured to the effect that the policy could be renewed only subject to the exclusion of five diseases. The major diseases against which the insured was covered were sought to be excluded from the policy. According to the insured, he was 65 years of age and needed coverage of mediclaim the most, because of his chronic renal failure, and, the action of the insurer seeking to exclude all major diseases from the coverage was arbitrary and illegal and not befitting a Government of India Company, which was created for the public and social welfare. 3. 2 the insurer contested the petition by filing affidavit-in-reply dated 25th December 2002 contending that the insured was not entitled to get the mediclaim insurance policy renewed without the exclusionary clause in view of the stipulation in clause No. 5. 9 of the policy, as per which, the policy may be renewed by mutual consent and the company may at any time cancel the same by sending the insure