Aggrieved, the respondent insurance companypany filed an appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge.
Alka Bose fell ill and as per advice of the doctor she was admitted to a hospital on August 14, 1991.
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court while agreeing with the view taken by the learned Single Judge substantially dismissed the appeal.
On August 30, 1991 the appellant lodged a claim for Rs.8,243/ with the insurance companypany along with necessary papers.
It is against the said part of the order the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The appellant, Biman Krishna Bose, has appeared in person.
On appeal before the State Commission, the order of the District Forum was set aside and direction was issued to the respondent insurance companypany to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.8,243/ .
On May 10, 1995 this Court allowed the appeal with companyts which was quantified at Rs.20,000/ .
The said writ petition was allowed and the order refusing to renew the policy was set aside and a direction was issued to the insurance companypany to renew the mediclaim policy earlier taken out by the appellant.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Calcutta High Court challenging the order passed by the respondent insurance companypany refusing to renew the mediclaim policy.
The insurance companypany thereafter went in revision before the National Consumer Redressal Commission which allowed the revision and set aside the order of the State Commission.
On 7.3.1996, the insurance companypany declined to renew the mediclaim policy as per the advice of the companypetent authority of the companypany.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before this Court.
Despite repeated requests the claim was number honored, with the result the appellant approached the District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum District Forum Calcutta but the said companyplaint was rejected.
The appellant referred to the exclusion clause of the policy taken out by him.
Yet, the High Court directed the appellant to take fresh mediclaim policy, as the renewal of mediclaim policy cannot be granted with retrospective effect, as the period for which renewal was required has already expired.
Relevant clauses 2.1 and 2.1.14 of the mediclaim policy run as under 2.1 The Company shall number be liable to make any payment under this policy in respect of any expenses whatsoever incurred by any Insured Person in companynect with or in respect of 2.1.14 All diseases injuries which are pre existing when the companyer incepts for the first time.
While the said litigation was going on, appellants policy fell due for renewal.
She paid Rs.8,243/ towards the charges for her treatment to the hospital.
Under such circumstances, the appellant on 24.1.1996, sent a letter along with a cheque of Rs.1,796/ to the respondent insurance companypany requesting for renewal of his existing mediclaim policy.
Despite the order of this Court, the payment was number made with the result the appellant had to take further proceedings.
According to the appellant, by the said order of the High Court he has been placed at a great disadvantageous position.
In July 1991, Smt.
N. KHARE, J. The appellant herein and his wife Smt.
Alka Bose, took out a mediclaim insurance policy from the respondent United India Insurance Company hereinafter referred to as insurance companypany on December 14, 1990.
