Hon'ble SINHA, J.— Leave granted in all the matters.

Introduction

2. Whether renewal of a mediclaim policy on payment of the amount of premium would be automatic, is the question involved herein.

Background Facts

3. The Parliament enacted the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act 1972 (for short 1972 Act) to provide for the acquisition and transfer of shares of Insurance Companies and undertakings of other insurers in order to serve better the need of the economy by securing the development of general insurance business in the best interest of the community and to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth to the common detriment, for the regulation and control of such business and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

4. Appellants are the two subsidiary insurance companies of General Insurance Corporation of India, carrying on the insurance business in terms of the 1972 Act. The General Insurance Companies had a monopoly over the business of general insurance whereas Life Insurance Corporation of India constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 enjoyed the monopoly in respect of the business of life insurance.

5. The business activities of the insurance companies are governed by the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short the 1938 Act). In terms of the provisions of the said Act, an authority known as Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (the Authority) was constituted by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it by clause 2(c) of Section 114 of the 1938 Act.

The Parliament also enacted the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999. By the 1999 Act the Parliament inserted Section 24A in the 1972 Act directing cessation of the exclusive privilege of the Corporation and the acquiring companies in relation thereto. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause 2(c) of sub-section (2) of Section 114A of the 1938 Act read with sections 14 and 26 of the 1999 Act, the Authority made Regulations known as Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interest) Regulations, 2002 (for short the 2002 Regulations).

Factual Matrix

6. We may at the outset, briefly notice the facts involved in one of the matters Facts of Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) 1534/2006

7. Respondents No.1 obtained the mediclaim policy from the appellant in April, 1995 and renewed annually upon payment of the requisite amount of premium. After over three years namely, in July, 1998, Respondent No.1 suffered a coronary disease and was admitted in the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre where he underwent ‘Angioplasty’. A claim made by him was paid by the appellant. In January, 2001 he was once again admitted to the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre and once again underwent ‘Angioplasty’. The amount claimed was duly reimbursed by the appellant to the respondent. In May, 2002 he was hospitalized in Holy Family Hospital for a minor operation and the medical expenses claimed to that effect were reimbursed by the appellant. In April, 2002 he underwent a bye-pass surgery. Respondent No.1 submitted his claim which, however, was not paid.

8. On 3rd April, 2003, the respondent approached the appellant for renewal of the policy and issued a cheque towards payment of the premium for the purpose of renewal of the policy w.e.f. 6th April, 2003, which was refused on the purported ground of ‘high claim ratio’. After serving notice, the said respondents filed a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by his order dated 7th January, 2005 directing the appellant to renew his mediclaim insurance policy.

9. An intra court appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 15th July, 2005. We would notice the factual matrix involved in other matters at a later stage.

Proceedings

10. Respondents in each of these matters entered