OM PRAKASH AHUJAversusRELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ETC.

              [2023] 10 S.C.R. 83 : 2023 INSC 598                         83


                      OM PRAKASH AHUJA                                    A
                                  v.
      RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ETC.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 2769-2770 of 2023)
                           JULY 04, 2023                                  B
         [ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
       Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Insurance claim –
Repudiation of – Denial of renewal of policy – On facts, pursuance
to the health insurance policy, the claimant incurred expenses on
                                                                          C
the treatment of his wife for ovarian cancer – Claim for
reimbursement of expenses made to the respondent-Insurance
company, however, the same was repudiated on the ground of non-
disclosure by the claimant that his wife was suffering from a
rheumatic heart disease – Filing of complaint – Allowed by the
District Forum and issuance of direction for renewal of the health        D
insurance policy upon payment of premium – Upheld by the State
Commission – However, the National Commission though upheld
the directions as regards reimbursement of expenses incurred
however, set aside the direction for renewal of the health insurance
policy – Meanwhile, the claimant sought renewal of policy from
                                                                          E
07.07.2009, but the same was denied by the respondent on the ground
of concealment of material facts – However, for the said period, policy
renewed in the year 2011 – Thereafter, for the period 2009 till 2011,
claimant sought reimbursement of expenses incurred for the wife’s
treatment, however, the same was not allowed – In revision petition,
the National Commission held that once the renewal of the policy          F
beyond 06.07.2009 was not proper, no claim was admissible – On
appeal, held: Even the Insurance Company accepted the fact that
non-mentioning of the disease from which the wife of the claimant
suffered at the time of purchasing the policy was not material, as the
death was caused from a different disease all together – Both had no
                                                                          G
relation with each other – Insurance company cannot be permitted to
raise same plea to deny renewal of insurance policy to the claimant
for the period from 07.07.2009 onwards – Moreover, the amount
of premium charged by the insurance company for renewal of
policies has not been refunded – Meaning thereby the premium for
renewal of the policies for the said period stands paid – Once there      H
                                  83
84            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A    is a valid insurance policy available in favour of the claimant, the
     claim made by him for reimbursement of the expenses is justifiable
     and is to be paid to him – Thus, the impugned order passed by the
     National Commission set aside.
           Allowing the appeals, the Court
B           HELD : 1. The ground on which renewal of insurance policy
     to the appellant is sought to be refused is that while taking the
     initial policy, the appellant had failed to disclose that his wife (now
     deceased) was suffering from rheumatic heart disease. Though
     she expired of cancer. The fact remains that the first policy was
C    taken by the appellant for the period from 07.07.2007 to
     06.07.2008, which was renewed for another year. The claims even
     for the period, wherein valid policy was available with the
     appellant, were repudiated. Renewal of policy beyond 07.07.2009
     onwards was refused relying upon the guidelines issued by the
     Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority vide
D    communication dated March 31, 2009. The claim of the appellant
     was repudiated on that very ground namely non–disclosure of
     the disease by which the wife of the appellant (now deceased)
     suffered at the time of purchase of initial policy. The repudiation
     of claim by the insurance company was subject matter of
E    consideration before the Fora at different levels under the
     Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The rejection of the claim on
     the ground that there was concealment of certain material facts
     by the appellant at the time of purchase of policy, was not found
     to be tenable and the insurance company was directed to
     reimburse the expenses incurred for the period from 07.07.2007
F    to 06.07.2009. The said amount was paid by the insurance
     company. The order passed by the National Commission was not
     challenged any further by the Insurance Company. From this, it
     is established that even the Insurance Company accepted the
     fact that non–mentioning of the disease from which the deceased
G    wife of the appellant suffered at the time of purchasing the policy
     was not material, as the death was caused from a different disease
     all together. Both had no relation with each other. Now, the
     insurance company cannot be permitted to raise same plea to
     deny renewal of insurance policy to the appellant for the period
     from 07.07.2009 onwards. Even though direction was given by
H
OM PRAKASH AHUJA v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE                       85
                 CO. LTD. ETC.

the District Forum vide order dated 11.09.2009 to renew the policy   A
further but it was not renewed, till such time interim order was
passed by the National Commission on 13.05.2011. [Para 26][93-
B-G]
       1.2 The impugned order was passed by the National
Commission whereby direction for renewal of policies was set         B
aside. The amount of premium charged by the insurance company
for renewal of policies has not been refunded. Meaning thereby
the premium for renewal of the policies for the period in dispute
stands paid. [Para 27][93-H; 94-A]
       1.3 The impugned order passed by the National                 C
Commission is set aside. The orders passed by the District Forum
and State Forum regarding direction to the Insurance Company
to renew the policies are restored. Further, once there is a valid
insurance policy available in favour of the appellant, the claim
made by him for reimbursement of the expenses incurred is
justifiable and deserves to be paid to him. [Para 29][94-D-E]        D

     Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar v. LIC 2015 SCC Online
     SC 1880; Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India
     Assurance Company Limited (2009) 8 SCC 316 : [2009]
     10 SCR 560; Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited
     and Another v. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod (2019) 6              E
     SCC 175 : [2019] 6 SCR 733; Oriental Insurance
     Company Limited v. Mahendra Construction (2019) 18
     SCC 209 – referred to.
                      Case Law Reference
                                                                     F
[2009] 10 SCR 560               referred to           Para 11, 28
[2019] 6 SCR 733                referred to           Para 11, 28
(2019) 18 SCC 209               referred to           Para 11, 28
      (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2769-
2770 of 2023)                                                        G

      From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2018 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP Nos. 923
of 2011 and RP No. 1417 of 2014.

                                                                     H
86            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A        Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Mohit Kumar Singh, Pankaj
     Kumar Mishra, Manish Kumar Vikkey, Advs. for the Appellant.
          Navneet Kumar, Saurabh Tiwari, Parijat Kishore, Advs. for the
     Respondents.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
           RAJESH BINDAL, J.
            1. Common order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the National
     Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, “the National
     Commission”) in Revision Petition Nos. 923 of 2011 and 1417 of 2014 is
C    under challenge before this Court. We deem it appropriate to notice the
     facts separately, before we deal with the arguments.
           REVISION PETITION NO. 923/2011
            2. This petition was filed by the respondent Insurance Company
     before the National Commission challenging order dated 23.12.2010
D    passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
     (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1792/09. It was an
     appeal against an order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the District Consumer
     Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short “the District Forum”), in a
     complaint filed by Om Prakash Ahuja, the appellant. The grievance raised
     by the appellant in the complaint was that the expenses incurred by him
E
     on treatment of his wife for ovarian cancer were not reimbursed by the
     respondent, Reliance General Insurance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
     “the insurance company”). It was pleaded that the health insurance policy
     was taken by the appellant for the family, which was valid from 7.7.2007
     to 6.7.2008. The coverage was for 2 lakhs against any health problem
F    and 4 lakhs in case of critical illness. The policy was further renewed
     up to 6.7.2009. The deceased wife of the appellant was diagnosed to be
     suffering from ovarian cancer. She was treated in various hospitals from
     19.1.2008 to 23.8.2008. Claim of 91,496 was lodged for treatment from
     19.1.2008 to 11.3.2008 and 4,14,464 for the period from 13.3.2008 to
     19.9.2008. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide
G
     letters dated 1.10.2008 and 8.12.2008, respectively on the ground that
     the appellant’s wife was suffering from rheumatic heart disease and the
     same was not disclosed in the proposal form. The complaint was filed
     before the District Forum. Vide order dated 11.09.2009 the District Forum
     directed the insurance company to reimburse the expenses incurred by
H    the appellant on treatment of his wife along with interest @ 8% p.a.
OM PRAKASH AHUJA v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE                                 87
        CO. LTD. ETC. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

Further, refusal to renew insurance policy was found to be arbitrary.          A
Direction was issued for renewal of the health insurance policy upon
payment of premium.
      3. The appeal filed by the insurance company against the order
passed by District Forum was dismissed by the State Commission vide
order dated 23.12.2010.                                                        B
       4. While entertaining the revision petition filed by the Insurance
Company against the order passed by the State Commission, the National
Commission vide interim order dated 13.5.2011 directed that the renewal
of insurance policy shall be subject to its final decision. Vide order dated
26.11.2018,the National Commission upheld the directions of the State          C
Commission to the extent of reimbursement of expenses incurred on the
treatment of the deceased wife of the appellant, however, the direction
for renewal of the health insurance policy was set aside.
      REVISION PETITION NO. 1417/2014
                                                                               D
       5. This revision petition was filed by the Insurance Company
before the National Commission against the order passed by the State
Commission in Appeal No. 689/2013 decided on 2.12.2013, whereby the
State Commission upheld the order dated 1.8.2013 passed by the District
Forum in a complaint filed by the appellant. It was pleaded in the complaint
that the appellant had initially purchased a health insurance policy for       E
the family which was valid from 7.7.2007 to 6.7.2008 and it was
subsequently renewed up to 6.7.2009.The said policy was renewed in
October 2011 for the period from 7.7.2009 to 6.7.2010 on payment of
premium of 6105 and for the period from 7.7.2010 to 6.7.2011 on
payment of 30,560 and for the period from 7.7.2011 to 6.7.2012 on
                                                                               F
payment of 30,560. As the complainant had spent a sum of 3,23,486.50
during the period from 11.11.2009 to 11.6.2010, 2,31,307.34during the
period from 2.8.2010 to 6.6.2011, 1,18,511.50 for the period 27.6.20111
to 30.9.2011 and 74,332.80 during the period from 27.9.2011 to
28.10.2011 on treatment of his wife, claim was lodged with the insurance
company. The claims having not been accepted, a complaint was filed.           G
The stand taken by the insurance company before the District Forum
was that the renewal of the policy was in terms of the order passed by
the District Forum in the earlier complaint filed by the appellant as
confirmed by the State Commission. However, the same was the subject
matter of challenge before the National Commission. Hence, no claim            H
88               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A    was admissible on that basis. However, finally the District Forum directed
     for reimbursement of 7,47,638.19 along with interest @ 9% p.a. Besides
     this, a sum of 20,000 was awarded for harassment and 5,000 towards
     litigation expenses.
         6. The appeal filed by the insurance company before the State
B    Commission was dismissed vide order dated 2.12.2013.
           7. The National Commission, vide impugned order allowed the
     Revision Petition No. 1417/2014 holding that once renewal of the policy
     beyond 6.7.2009 was not proper, no claim was admissible.
              ARGUMENTS
C
            8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case in
     which the appellant had got the health insurance policy for the family.
     Once expenses had been incurred on the treatment of his wife, the same
     were required to be reimbursed by the insurance company. There is no
     dispute raised as expenses were actually incurred. The wife of the
D
     appellant unfortunately expired. Though the direction was issued by the
     District Forum, as upheld up to the National Commission, the expenses
     incurred during the period 7.7.2007 to 6.7.2009 were directed to be paid
     to the appellant considering the fact that the concealment of rheumatic
     heart disease had no relation with ovarian cancer. Reliance was placed
E    on order passed by this Court in Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar v. LIC1.
     However, for the period subsequent to 6.7.2009, the claim was not
     accepted by the insurance company. On a complaint filed by the appellant,
     a direction was issued by the District Forum to the insurance company
     to reimburse the expenses incurred on the treatment. The order was
     upheld by the State Commission. However, the National Commission
F
     has erroneously set aside that order holding that the renewal of policy
     was not proper. No doubt, the health insurance policy was renewed on a
     direction issued by the District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission.
     However, non-renewal of a policy by the insurance company has certainly
     deprived the appellant from taking the policy from any other company.
G    At this stage, it would be unreasonable to deprive the appellant of the
     fruits of the policy in the form of claim, despite the fact that more than
     the normal premium was charged by the insurance company at the time
     of renewal as extra risk was covered.

     1
H        2015 SCC Online SC 1880.
OM PRAKASH AHUJA v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE                                89
        CO. LTD. ETC. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

       9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company        A
submitted that no benefit could accrue to the appellant in terms of an
order passed by the Commission, which was ultimately set aside. Initially
the appellant had got the policy from 7.7.2007 to 6.7.2008, which was
renewed upto 6.7.2009. There was some issue with reference to the
claim for expenses incurred by the appellant for treatment of his wife as
                                                                              B
the disease from which she was suffering at the time of purchasing the
policy, was not disclosed. Still in a complaint filed by the appellant,
direction was issued for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the
appellant. As the direction was upheld up to the National Commission,
the insurance company has not challenged the same. Even though there
may be dispute regarding the quantum of expenses incurred.                    C
       10. There is no error in the order passed by the National
Commission whereby it has held that renewal of policy from 7.7.2009
onwards is not proper. In fact, the last policy of the appellant expired on
6.7.2009 and thereafter there was no renewal of the policy as the
insurance company had refused to renew the same. It was in terms of           D
the order passed by the District Forum on 11.9.2009 as upheld by the
State Commission by order dated 23.12.2010 and the interim order passed
by the National Commission on 13.5.2011 that the insurance policy from
7.7.2009 to 6.7.2012 was renewed in October 2011. Interim order passed
by the National Commission specifically stated that the renewal will be
                                                                              E
subject to the final decision and finally the National Commission held
that the direction issued by the State Commission for renewal of the
policy was not proper.
       11. Issuance of insurance policy is a contract. The insurance
company cannot be compelled to sell any policy. In fact, the refusal to
                                                                              F
renew the policy was in terms of the guidelines issued down by the
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority dated March 31,
2009.The appellant cannot compel the insurance company to violate those
guidelines. In terms of the aforesaid guidelines, renewal of an insurance
policy can be refused on the ground of fraud, moral hazard or
misrepresentation. It is a case in which at the time of purchasing the        G
first policy, the appellant had concealed the factum of illness being
suffered by his wife as a result of which the claim for treatment was
made. Though that amount is not being disputed by the appellant, however,
the claim made for the period during which the policy was renewed in
terms of interim order passed by the National Commission will not be
                                                                              H
90             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A    admissible to the appellant. He further submitted that reliance on the
     order passed by this Court in Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar’s case
     (supra)is totally misplaced. In the aforesaid order, the earlier binding
     precedents of this Court in Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India
     Assurance Company Limited2, Reliance Life Insurance Company
     Limited and Another v. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod3 and Oriental
B
     Insurance Company Limited v. Mahendra Construction4, were not
     considered.
            DISCUSSION
            12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
C    referred records.
            13. As per the facts available, in the complaint No. 50 filed by the
     appellant before the District Forum, the wife of the appellant was detected
     suffering from Cancer of Ovary. She was treated in various hospitals
     from 19.01.2008 onwards. She remained hospitalised from 19.01.2008
D    to 23.08.2008. A claim of 91,416 was submitted for the expenses
     incurred for treatment from 19.01.2008 to 11.03.2008. A further claim
     of 4,14,464.76 was submitted for treatment from 13.03.2008 to
     19.09.2008. The aforesaid claims were repudiated by the insurance
     company vide letters dated 01.10.2008 and 08.12.2008, respectively.
     Challenging the rejection of the claim, a complaint was filed before the
E    District Forum.
            14. The District Forum vide order dated 11.09.2009 accepted the
     complaint. The communications of the insurance company repudiating
     the claims were set aside, while holding that there was no relation of the
     disease suffered by the wife of the appellant with the disease for which
F    treatment was taken. The action of insurance company in refusing further
     renewal of the policy was also held to be bad. Accordingly, the direction
     was issued to renew the policies from the date these expired on payment
     of renewal charges.
            15. The aforesaid order was challenged by the insurance company
G    before the State Commission. However, the said appeal was dismissed.
     The State Commission observed that even at the time of the first renewal
     of the policy from 07.07.2008 to 06.07.2009, the insurance company
     2
       (2009) 8 SCC 316.
     3
       (2019) 6 SCC 175.
H    4
       (2019) 18 SCC 209.
OM PRAKASH AHUJA v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE                                91
        CO. LTD. ETC. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

was well aware of the treatment which the wife of the appellant was           A
undergoing, for which the claim had already been submitted. The order
dated 23.12.2010 passed by the State Commission was challenged by
the insurance company before the National Commission.
       16. Vide interim order dated 13.05.2011, the National Commission
directed that the renewal of policy in terms of the direction issued by the   B
District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission, shall be subject to
final decision in the Revision Petition No.923 of 2011. The challenge by
the insurance company before the National Commission was only to the
direction issued by the lower authorities for renewal of the policy from
07.07.2009 onwards, otherwise the amount spent by the appellant for
treatment as claimed in the complaint was not disputed and was duly           C
paid.
      17. In terms of the interim order passed by the National
Commission, the insurance policy was renewed for the period from
07.07.2009 to 06.07.2010 on payment of a premium of 6,105. Policy
was further renewed for the period from 07.07.2010 to 06.07.2011 and          D
from 07.07.2011 to 06.07.2012, on payment of annual premium of 30,560.
The fact remains that the sum insured remained the same from the very
beginning i.e., two lakhs and four lakhs in case of critical illness. The
policy from 07.07.2009 onwards was renewed in October 2011.
       18. A complaint bearing number 249 of 2012 was filed by the            E
appellant seeking reimbursement of the amount spent by the appellant
on the treatment of his wife of 3,23,486.50 for the period from 11.11.2009
to 11.06.2010, 2,31,307.34 for the period from 02.08.2010 to 06.06.2011,
  1,18,511.50 for the period from 27.06.2011 to 30.09.2011 and 74,332.80
for the period from 27.09.2011 to 28.10.2011. The claim was submitted         F
by the Appellant on 14.10.2011 which was repudiated vide letter dated
31.01.2012, after which the complaint was filed. The reason assigned
was that the renewal of insurance policies for the period in question was
sub judice before the National Commission.
      19. The District Forum accepted the complaint vide order dated          G
01.08.2013 and directed reimbursement of expenses incurred by the
appellant. The State Commission in an appeal filed by the insurance
company upheld the order passed by the District Forum.
     20. The aforesaid order was also challenged by the insurance
company before the National Commission by filing Revision Petition
                                                                              H
92            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A    No. 1417 of 2014. The National Commission decided both the Revision
     petitions vide a common order.
            21. There is a letter dated 10.03.2008 on record from the appellant
     to respondent no.2 namely Paramount Health Services Private Limited,
     who is the agent of the insurance company. The letter clearly suggests
B    that the claim had been lodged and allotted number 2771734. It was
     thereafter that the policy for the next year was renewed on 07.07.2008.
            22. There was no clear answer given by learned Counsel for the
     respondent insurance company regarding the submission of the claim
     made by the appellant with its agent on 10.03.2008 which was even
C    allotted a claim number 2771734. All what was sought to be explained
     was that it was in process and may not be in the notice of the department
     renewing the policy from 07.07.2008 till 06.07.2009.
            23. The National Commission in Revision Petition 923 of 2011 set
     aside the direction issued by the lower authorities for renewal of the
D    policies beyond 06.07.2009, as it was noticed that there was concealment
     of facts by the appellant at the time of purchase of the policy with
     reference to the disease already suffered by his wife i.e., rheumatic
     heart disease. Once the policies for the period from 07.07.2009 onwards
     are not renewed, the claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred on
     treatment was also rejected while setting aside the orders passed by the
E    lower authorities.
            24. A certificate dated June 30, 2009, issued by Rajiv Gandhi Cancer
     Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi has been placed on record
     giving the details of the treatment given to the wife of the appellant, who
     was a registered patient with the hospital since 13.03.2008 and prior to
F    that she had undergone surgery on 31.01.2008 at AIIMS. The certificate
     further mentions that rheumatic heart disease and carcinoma ovary are
     not related to each other.
           25. The main thrust of the argument of learned Counsel for the
     insurance company is that in terms of the guidelines issued by the
G    Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority on 31.03.2009
     regarding renewal of health insurance policies, the renewal of policy to
     the appellant could be refused. The relevant clause is extracted below
     from the IRDA letter dated 31st March, 2009.
           “A health insurance policy shall be ordinarily renewable
H          except on grounds such as fraud, moral hazard, or
OM PRAKASH AHUJA v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE                                   93
        CO. LTD. ETC. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

       misrepresentation and upon renewal being sought by the                    A
       insured, shall not be rejected on arbitrary grounds.
       Specifically, renewal shall not be denied on the ground that
       the insured had made a claim (or claims) in the previous or
       earlier years.”
       26. The ground on which renewal of insurance policy to the                B
appellant is sought to be refused is that while taking the initial policy, the
appellant had failed to disclose that his wife (now deceased) was suffering
from rheumatic heart disease. Though she expired of cancer. The fact
remains that the first policy was taken by the appellant for the period
from07.07.2007 to 06.07.2008, which was renewed for another year.
The claims even for the period, wherein valid policy was available with          C
the appellant, were repudiated. Renewal of policy beyond 07.07.2009
onwards was refused relying upon the guidelines issued by the Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority vide communication dated March
31, 2009. The claim of the appellant was repudiated on that very ground
namely non-disclosure of the disease by which the wife of the appellant          D
(now deceased) suffered at the time of purchase of initial policy. The
repudiation of claim by the insurance company was subject matter of
consideration before the Fora at different levels under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. The rejection of the claim on the ground that there
was concealment of certain material facts by the appellant at the time of
purchase of policy, was not found to be tenable and the insurance company        E
was directed to reimburse the expenses incurred for the period from
07.07.2007 to 06.07.2009.The aforesaid amount was paid by the insurance
company. The order passed by the National Commission was not
challenged any further by the Insurance Company.From this, it is
established that even the Insurance Company accepted the fact that               F
non-mentioning of the disease from which the deceased wife of the
appellant suffered at the time of purchasing the policy was not material,
as the death was caused from a different disease all together. Both had
no relation with each other. Now, the insurance company cannot be
permitted to raise same plea to deny renewal of insurance policy to the
appellant for the period from 07.07.2009 onwards. Even though direction          G
was given by the District Forum vide order dated 11.09.2009 to renew
the policy further but it was not renewed, till such time interim order was
passed by the National Commission on 13.05.2011.
    27. Further the impugned order was passed by the National
Commission on 26.11.2018, whereby direction for renewal of policies              H
94             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A    was set aside. The amount of premium charged by the insurance company
     for renewal of policies has not been refunded. Meaning thereby the
     premium for renewal of the policies for the period in dispute stands paid.
            28. The judgments of this Court relied upon by the insurance
     company in the case of Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs. New India
B    Assurance Company Limited5; Reliance Life Insurance Company
     Limited vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod6 and Oriental Insurance
     Company Limited vs. Mahendra Construction7 will not come to its
     rescue for the reason that in the aforesaid cases, the issue under
     consideration was whether the repudiation of the claim by the insurance
     company on the ground of concealment of fact at the time of purchase
C    of policy was valid or not. It was with reference to the period during
     which the policy was valid. Examining the facts of the above-mentioned
     cases, this Court opined that the repudiation of claim was legally
     sustainable. In the case in hand repudiation of claim was set aside &
     order was accepted by the Insurance Company.
D           29. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are allowed.
     The impugned order passed by the National Commission is set aside.
     The orders passed by the District Forum and State Forum regarding
     direction to the Insurance Company to renew the policies are restored.
     Further, once there is a valid insurance policy available in favour of the
E    appellant, the claim made by him for reimbursement of the expenses
     incurred is justifiable and deserves to be paid to him. Ordered accordingly.
     There shall be no order as to costs.

     Nidhi Jain                                                   Appeals allowed.
     (Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)
F




G



     5
       (2009) 8 SCC 316.
     6
       (2019) 6 SCC 175.
     7
H      (2019) 18 SCC 209.