Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. During the validity of the first policy the petitioner had undergone treatment at Santigiri Medical College and Hospital, Olassery, Palakkad, from 5.5.2003 to 14.5.2003. But the claim made by the petitioner for Rs.10,468/- was repudiated by the 1st respondent stating that medical expenses incurred during the first year of the policy is inadmissible. Subsequently, the said policy was renewed from 29.5.2003 to 28.5.2004. During the validity of that policy, the petitioner had undergone treatment for facial paralysis, neck stiffness, joint pain and inflammation, at Oushadhi Panchakarma Hospital and Research Institute, Thrissur, from 9.3.2004 to 18.3.2004. But, his claim for Rs.17,679/- was also repudiated by the 1st respondent, on 2.4.2004. Aggrieved by such rejection, the petitioner preferred Exhibit P2 complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad. The petitioner was again admitted at Oushadhi Panchakarma Hospital  and Research Institute, Thrissur, in February, 2005, due to "Vathavikaram", and he had undergone treatment spending Rs.12,862/-. Initially, the respondents were not willing to settle this claim. Later, the said amount was paid by way of cheque drawn on HDFC Bank. It was thereafter, the petitioner received Exhibit P3 letter from the 1st respondent, intimating that, they will not renew Exhibit P1 Mediclaim policy, which will expire on 28.5.2005.

10. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. Exhibit P1 policy produced along with the Writ Petition is a Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospital Benefit Policy issued to the petitioner for the period from 29.5.2004 to 28.5.2005. The specific case of the 1st respondent is that, when the petitioner had approached them for taking the first Mediclaim policy, he was aged 58 years and was not covered by any Mediclaim policies earlier. Though, the petitioner was not eligible for any Mediclaim policy, considering the special request made by him, they have issued Mediclaim policy for limited purpose, which was issued on the basis of an undertaking given by the petitioner, on 28.3.2002, to the effect that he shall not be entitled for the treatment expenses for diseases during the first period of policy,  as the policy was mainly intended to cover accidents. The said undertaking given by the petitioner is not on record in this Writ petition. But, as can be seen from Exhibit R1(a) order passed by the Consumer Forum, which order has attained finality, the complaint made by the petitioner before the Consumer Forum was rejected mainly relying on the said undertaking given by the petitioner, which was marked in that proceedings as Exhibit B1. The document referred to as Exhibit B2 in Exhibit R1(a) order of the Consumer Forum is a copy of the Mediclaim policy with conditions and it was relying on Exhibits B1 and B2, the Consumer Forum came to the conclusion that, the petitioner virtually agreed that the policy is valid only for accidents and therefore the treatment for diseases is not covered by the first Mediclaim policy issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, at the request of the petitioner, the Mediclaim policy was renewed with effect from 28.5.2003 and such renewal was with a specific exclusion clause to the effect that, it is not intended to cover treatment expenses for `Apabhahugam' on both shoulders. However, on 22.3.2004, the petitioner submitted another claim  for treatment expenses for the said disease which claim was repudiated by the 1st respondent and their action in that regard was upheld by the Consumer Forum in Exhibit R1(a) order. Therefore, as borne out from the pleadings and the documents on record, the petitioner made claims before the 1st respondent, contrary to the undertaking given at the time of issuance of the first Mediclaim policy and also contrary to the exclusion clause based on which the policy was renewed by the 1st respondent.

11. Now, the issue to be considered is as to whether the stand taken by the 1st respondent in Exhibit P3 not to renew the Mediclaim policy issued to the petitioner is justifiable or not. As seen from Exhibit P3, the 1st respondent has decided not to renew the policy already issued to the petitioner, mainly due to the claims made by him contrary to the undertaking given at the time of issuance of the first policy and also contrary to the exclusion clause on which the policy was later renewed. In addition to this, he had approached the Consumer Forum against the repudiation of claim by the 1st respondent. As evident from Exhibit P1 policy, it can be renewed by mutual consent. General insurance contracts are based on the principles of `utmost good  faith', which means that both parties should disclose all the material facts and be faithful to each other. There should be `consensus ad idem', which means agreement of mind, i.e., the insurer issues and the insured accepts the policy on the same terms and conditions as commonly understood by each other. But, merely for the reason that, during the validity of the policy, the insured had made claims contrary to the terms of the policy or had approached a court of law for redressal of his grievances, it cannot be contended that it will amount to violation of the above two conditions, disentitling the insured for renewal of the policy.

15. In the case on hand, as evident from Exhibit P3, the 1st respondent decided not to renew the Mediclaim policy issued to the petitioner on the ground of his past conducts. The past conducts attributed are that, he made claims contrary to the undertaking given or the exclusion clause and that, he had approached the Consumer Forum against the repudiation of claim by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has no case that, the petitioner had made any bogus claim without actually undergoing treatment. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be found fault with in lodging claims before the 1st respondent. If an insured lodges a claim with the company and the company does not honour the claim, the insured is left with no alternative but to knock at the doors of a court of law. Merely because the insured had approached the Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievance, such an act cannot be attributed as a bad record disentitling him to get the policy renewed.