(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 11/09/2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No.59/2001, Shri Sumantrao bandoba Salunkhe Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
(2) On failure to renew the mediclaim policy in spite of sending premium, consumer complaint was filed to get the mediclaim policy renewed. The District Forum directed original opponent, the insurance company to renew the mediclaim policy by accepting premium from the respondent/original complainant. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the insurance company preferred this appeal.
(3) We have heard Adv.R.P.Bafna for the appellant insurance company. Though duly served, respondent preferred to remain absent. However, he has sent written statement by post stating that he is not in a position to come to the Commission to argue the matter. Under the circumstances, we perused the record and considered the appeal on merit. Admittedly, after the initial mediclaim policy term was expired, the insurance company, in its own discretion, decided not to renew the insurance policy. It being a contractual liability, to renew or not to renew the insurance policy is discretion with the parties to it including the insurance company. Perhaps, influenced by the part mediclaim history, the insurance company decided not to renew the policy and also informed its decision to the complainant by its letter dated 15/03/2001 even before the before the expiry of the policy and refunded the premium sent. No relief has been claimed in the case, monetary to review will not available within the ambit of Sec.14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under the given circumstances, the Forum erroneously gave the direction to renew the policy. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 11/09/2001 passed by District Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No.59/2001 is quashed and set aside and in the result, the Consumer Complaint No.59/2001 is dismissed.
(2) Under the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced on 15h December, 2011.
