Appellants are the two subsidiary insurance companypanies of General Insurance Corporation of India, carrying on the insurance business in terms of the 1972 Act.
An intra companyrt appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 15th July, 2005.
On or about 9.9.2002, Respondent No.1 handed over a cheque for a sum of Rs.6,377/ by way of renewal of insurance policy.
FACTUAL MATRIX We may at the outset, briefly numberice the facts involved in one of the matters Facts of Civil Appeal SLP C 1534/2006 Respondents No.1 obtained the mediclaim policy from the appellant in April, 1995 and renewed annually upon payment of the requisite amount of premium.
It is at that juncture, the writ petition was filed.
He was diagnosed with Hypogamglobulinemias in August September 1999.
The business activities of the insurance companypanies are governed by the Insurance Act, 1938 for short the 1938 Act .
By a letter dated 15.1.2002, the mediclaim policy for the year 2002 2003 was refused to be renewed and he was asked to renew his policy in another companypany.
A claim made by him was paid by the appellant.
After serving numberice, 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.
The Parliament also enacted the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999.
We would numberice the factual matrix involved in other matters at a later stage.
In April, 2002 he underwent a bye pass surgery.
In exercise of the powers companyferred 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 .
Respondent No.1 submitted his claim which, however, was number paid.
The General Insurance Companies had a monopoly over the business of general insurance whereas Life Insurance Corporation of India companystituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 enjoyed the monopoly in respect of the business of life insurance.
After over three years namely, in July, 1998, Respondent No.1 suffered a companyonary disease and was admitted in the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre where he underwent Angioplasty.
Policy by sending the Insured 30 days numberice by registered letter at the insured last known address and in such event the Company shall refund to the Insured a pro rata premium for unexpired Period of Insurance.
Despite the same, the policy was renewed.
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.
In January, 2001 he was once again admitted to the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre and once again underwent Angioplasty.
In SLP C No.10205 of 2004, the second respondent, who is a practicing companysultant neurologist and physician since 1961, had taken mediclaim insurance for himself his wife and his family members since 1992 1993.
In response thereto, only on 30.9.2002, the appellant stated that the policy would be renewed by loading of 300 premium.
As numberaction thereon was taken, a reminder was sent.
PROCEEDINGS Respondents in each of these matters entered into their respective companytracts of insurance with the appellant companypany.
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 companypanies in relation thereto.
It was in the aforementioned situation, the writ petition was filed.
The amount claimed was duly reimbursed by the appellant to the respondent.
Respondent No.3 in SLP C No.10205 of 2004 had taken a mediclaim policy and accident insurance policy in 1988.
BACKGROUND FACTS 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 companymunity and to ensure that the operation of the economic system does number result in the companycentration of wealth to the companymon detriment, for the regulation and companytrol of such business and for other matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
Despite issuance of the said sum, the policy was number renewed.
In terms of the provisions of the said Act, an authority known as Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority the Authority was companystituted by the Central Government in exercise of its power companyferred upon it by clause 2 c of Section 114 of the 1938 Act.
A sum of Rs.18,982 was deposited.
A receipt acknowledging the sum of Rs.6,377/ was also issued.
The legal numberice was refused to be accepted by the Divisional Manager.
They were number renewed.
By a letter dated 26.7.2002, appellant informed him that his mediclaim policy which was to expire on 13.8.2002 would be renewed subject to the exclusion of the disease Septioemia with Hypogamglobulinemias and was advised that the next premium will be accepted after loading of 100 with 5 excess for each and every claim.
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.
A legal numberice was also issued.
Strangely enough, only on October 3, 2002, the appellant stated that the said policy companyld be renewed subject to exclusion of the diseases specified therein.
INTRODUCTION Whether renewal of a mediclaim policy on payment of the amount of premium would be automatic, is the question involved herein.
Contending that the appellant and other subsidiaries of the Corporation being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, they must be fair and reasonable and keeping in view the principles enunciated in the Directive Principle of State policy as companytained in Chapter IV of the Constitution of India, writ petitions were filed before the Gujarat High Court.
S,B, SINHA, J. Leave granted in all the matters.
