Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions to the respondent(hereinafter called `` the insurer'` close) to reimburse the expenses incurred by him for his medical treatment, in accordance with the policy of insurance(hereinafter called `` mediclaim'`).

2. The respondent is in the business of Insurance. The petitioner is a chartered accountant by profession. He was retained for the job carrying auditing the respondent's Division Office No. 7, Delhi. At that time, i.e May 2001 the insurer's agents/employees allegedly represented to petitioner that he should take an Individual Mediclaim Policy to cover his health. On a pointed query from petitioner that, if he could be insured, as he was a diabetic, a hypertensive and had undergone a cataract operation of an eye, he was assured by respondent's representative that he would be eligible for such a policy and that he had to furnish complete details of the medication being undergone by him at that point of time.

3. The petitioner filled up the proposal form, underwent the necessary medical tests suggested by the respondent and fully disclosured his existing medical condition. An ECG was also conducted, as required, on 3.5.2001 and supplied to the respondent. The said ECG showed 'NAD' in the heart condition. After satisfying itself as to the insurable interest of the petitioner, individual Mediclaim Policy No. 2002/34 was issued to him effective from 10th May, 2001. No claim was under the said Policy; it was renewed with effect from 10th May, 2002 through Policy No. 2003/31. No Claim was preferred against the said Policy also. Again the cover was renewed effective 10th May 2003 through Policy No. 2004/17. Yet again it was extended w.e.f. 10th May, 2004 by Policy No. 2005/30. No Claim was made against this policy too. Finally the Policy was extended for the period 10th May, 2005 to 9th May, 2006 through Policy No. 2006/44. This Policy carried a cumulative bonus of 15% due to 'no claim' against for the previous four years. The sum insured against the said policy was Rs. 2,30,000/- inclusive of the bonus.

4.2 Any expenses on hospitalisation/domicilary incurred during first 30 days from the date of commencement of insurance cover except in case of injury arising out of accident.

17. In Biman Krishna's case (supra) the Supreme Court held as follows:

2. The appellant, Biman Krishna Bose, has appeared in person. He argued that the High Court even after setting aside the order refusing to renew the policy, was not justified in directing the appellant to take fresh mediclaim policy. According to the appellant, by the said order of the High Court he has been placed at a great disadvantageous position. The appellant referred to the exclusion clause of the policy taken out by him. Relevant Clauses 2.1 and 2.1.14 of the mediclaim policy run as under:

20. The Life Insurance Case (supra) itself concerned issuance of policy of insurance; the later case decided by the Supreme Court, i.e Biman Chandra Bose concerned a dispute relating to mediclaim policy. Likewise, Mukutlal Duggal (decided by this Court) and Mohan Lal Aggarwal, (decided by the Gujarat High Court) have shown the way; mediclaim policies, and disputes arising from them, can be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Here, addtionally, there is no dispute on facts. The respondent does not deny that the petitioner disclosed, in May 2001 itself, his medication as well as existing ailments, such as a decade old case of diabetes, and hypertension. Apart from these, he was also medically examined; his ECG was obtained. Premia were paid, successively for over five years; the petitioner was even granted cumulative no-claim bonus. The question is whether in these circumstances, the plea that Clause 4.1 excluded liability is justified.