Bombay High Court Allows Health Insurance Renewal Petitions Against United India Insurance Company — Insurer Cannot Refuse Renewal Based on Pre-existing Disease Exclusion After Continuous Coverage Under Group Policy. The court held that the exclusion clause for pre-existing diseases applies only at the inception of the first policy and not at renewal, and that refusal to renew was arbitrary.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 66
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, account holders of Bank of Maharashtra, were covered under a group health insurance scheme called 'Mahabank Swasthya Yojna' provided by United India Insurance Company Limited. The scheme was governed by an agreement dated 18 May 2006 between the bank and the insurer. The petitioners had been continuously insured under the scheme for several years. When they sought renewal of their policies, the insurer refused renewal on the ground that they had pre-existing diseases. The petitioners challenged this refusal by filing writ petitions. The court examined the terms of the agreement, particularly Clause 4.1 which excluded pre-existing diseases at the time the cover incepts for the first time. The court held that the exclusion clause applies only at the inception of the first policy and not at the time of renewal. Since the petitioners had been continuously covered without any break, the insurer could not refuse renewal based on pre-existing diseases. The court also noted that the IRDA guidelines require insurers to renew health insurance policies without imposing fresh waiting periods for pre-existing diseases if the policy has been continuously renewed. The court allowed the petitions and directed the insurer to renew the policies.

Headnote

A) Insurance Law - Renewal of Health Insurance - Pre-existing Disease Exclusion - Insurer cannot refuse renewal of health insurance policy on ground of pre-existing disease where the policy has been continuously renewed without break and the insured has been covered under a group insurance scheme for several years - The court held that the exclusion clause for pre-existing diseases applies only at the inception of the first policy and not at the time of renewal, and that the insurer's refusal to renew was arbitrary and violative of the terms of the policy and IRDA guidelines (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an insurance company can refuse renewal of a health insurance policy on the ground of pre-existing disease when the policy has been continuously renewed without any break and the insured has been covered under a group insurance scheme for several years.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the insurer to renew the health insurance policies of the petitioners.

Law Points

  • Renewal of health insurance policy cannot be denied on ground of pre-existing disease if policy has been continuously renewed without break
  • Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) guidelines on portability and renewal
  • Group insurance policy terms binding on insurer
  • Principle of legitimate expectation in insurance contracts
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013:BHC-OS:8241-DB

Writ Petition No. 1219 of 2012, Writ Petition No. 10 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 19 of 2013

2013-08-19

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, S.C. Gupte

2013:BHC-OS:8241-DB

Mr. Gaurav Joshi (Amicus Curiae), Ms. Varda A. Gokhale (Petitioner No.3 in person), Mr. A.S. Vadyarthi (for Respondent No.1), Mr. Sachin Joshi (for Respondent No.2)

Kalyani Avinash Gokhale & Ors.

United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging the refusal of renewal of health insurance policies by the insurer.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought direction to the insurer to renew their health insurance policies.

Filing Reason

Insurer refused renewal on ground of pre-existing diseases despite continuous coverage under group insurance scheme.

Issues

Whether the insurer can refuse renewal of health insurance policy on ground of pre-existing disease when the policy has been continuously renewed without break. Whether the exclusion clause for pre-existing diseases applies at renewal or only at inception of first policy.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they had been continuously covered under the group insurance scheme and the insurer could not refuse renewal based on pre-existing diseases. Respondent insurer argued that the policy terms allowed refusal of renewal if the insured had pre-existing diseases.

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion clause for pre-existing diseases in a health insurance policy applies only at the inception of the first policy and not at the time of renewal. Where the policy has been continuously renewed without break, the insurer cannot refuse renewal on the ground of pre-existing diseases.

Judgment Excerpts

The decision of the First Respondent to decline a renewal of the Health Insurance Cover has been called into question. Clause 4.1 provided for exclusions: 'All diseases / injuries which are pre-existing when the cover incepts for the first time'.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging the refusal of renewal of health insurance policies by United India Insurance Company Limited. The court heard the matters together and delivered a common judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Insurance Act, 1938:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Health Insurance Renewal Petitions Against United India Insurance Company — Insurer Cannot Refuse Renewal Based on Pre-existing Disease Exclusion After Continuous Coverage Under Group Policy. The court held that the exclusi...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Cellular Company's Petition Against Panchayat Orders for Demolition of Telecom Tower. Held that a mobile phone tower is not a 'building' under Section 135 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Panchayat lacked jurisdict...