JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for

1. Op be directed to extend the policy from 16/01/2018 till the date of receiving the premium 
2. The Op  be directed to reimburse the amount Rs. 205193
3. The Op be directed to pay compensation Rs 2 lakh for harassment and Rs 20000/ for litigation expenses.

2. Complainant has stated that he obtained a mediclaim policy on 04/01/2011 or assured some Rs 5 lakh through bank of Baroda and paid the premium regularly for renewal of the policy from year to year. The policy was renewed till 15/01/2018. On 15/01/2018 Complainant send the cheque for payment of   the premium  for renewal of the  policy but the policy was not renewed and it was communicated by the op through RTI  that policy was closed on 3/10/2018 for want of application for renewal . Complainant had sent the cheque to pay the premium and it is clear indication for renewal of the policy from the side of the complainant. Complainant had entered into contract with the op on 4/1/2011 which was extended from year to year till 15/1/2018 and on 15/1/2018 complainant had sent a cheque for payment of premium to extend the existing contract on terms agreed previously and thereby complainant offered to perform his promise and op was under obligation to accept the promise to perform his reciprocal promise as agreed previously.  The contract existed and op was obliged to perform the reciprocal promise under the Contract Act unless the performance of the promise was dispensed with or excused under the Contract Act or by any other Law. Op has not assigned any provision of law to dispense with the performance of its reciprocal promise. Complainant can not lose his rights under the Contract Act on refusal to perform the reciprocal promise by the op by way of denial of extension  of period of policy with effect from 16/1/2018. The complainant had undergone medical treatment at Metro Hospital, New Delhi and he incurred the amount Rs 205193/ supported by the papers. Op had failed to discharge its obligation by denying to extend the period of policy from year to year whereby complainant could not apply for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in his treatment and thus op committed deficiency. Complainant had earlier filed a complaint which was withdrawn with the liberty to file a fresh case.

3. Op has stated in ws that the complainant had obtained a medi claim policy through Bank of Baroda which remained effective till 15/1/2018 and thereafter there remained no policy of contract. Complainant was communicated through letter dated 3/7/2019 that the policy was withdrawn and another medi claim policy may be obtained. The policy did not exist on 15/1/2018 and in the absence of premium as a consideration no contract came in existence. The policy was not in existence in the year 2020 when treatment expenses were incurred.

4. Parties have filed affidavits and written arguments.
5. We have heard the parties counsel and perused the record. 
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7.  It is evident from the record that the complainant obtained the mediclaim policy with effect from 16/1/2008 and was renewed from year to year till 15/1/2018. Complainant had sent a cheque for payment of the premium for renewal of the policy wef 16/1/2018 but the cheque was returned by the op on the ridiculous ground that renewal application was not sent by the complainant. it is clear that the cheque for payment of the premium was sent by the complainant with the intention to renew the policy and the op should not have adopted the technical approach in retuning the cheque and not renewing the policy without application. At the cheque for premium was sent by the complainant the policy ought to have been renewed. The policy contract came into existence between the parties wef 16/1/2008 and it was formally renewed from year to year on payment of premium till 15/1/2018. Similarly, policy contract should have been renewed   wef 16/1/2018 on sending cheque of the premium amount by the complainant. On failure to renew the policy by the op, o has committed deficiency in service and is under obligation to renew the policy wef 16/1/2018 till the current year on payment of amount of the payment and to indemnify the complainant for the treatment expenses incurred by him in hospital.
8. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
9. The second question of consideration before us is whether the complaint case is time barred.
10.  Complainant has stated that he had filed complaint case no. 211/2022 which was withdrawn on 23.11.2023 with a liberty to file fresh case. Thereafter complainant had fallen ill and on recovering health he filed this complaint case with submission of condonation of delay u/s 69(2) of the Act. Complainant has filed affidavit to support his case and the case was admitted. Thus delay was condoned and case was admitted. Accordingly complaint cannot be said as barred by time.
11. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
12.  We hereby direct the op to renew the policy with effect from 16.1.2018 to year to year on receiving the amount of premium and to reimburse the complainant for the amount Rs.205193  as expenses incurred in treatment of the complainant with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% with litigation expenses Rs. 20000.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded as per rule on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.