Renewal of insurance policy cannot be denied on the basis of insured contracted disease during policy period

Last updated: 28 October 2022
Quick Summary
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that insurance companies cannot refuse to renew a Mediclaim policy simply because the policyholder contracted a disease during the term of the expiring policy. As long as the renewal premium is paid on time, the policy must be renewed without excluding any diseases already covered. This decision clarifies that insurers cannot arbitrarily deny renewal, even if the policy becomes more costly due to the insured's illness.

Court :
Gujarat High Court

Brief :
In case of renewal without break in the period, the Mediclaim insurance policy will be renewed without excluding any disease already covered under the existing policy which may have been contracted during the period of the expiring policy. Renewal of Mediclaim insurance policy cannot be refused on the ground that the insured had contracted disease during the period of the expiring policy so far as the basic sum insured under the existing policy is concerned.

Citation :
United India Insurance Company vs. Mohanlal Aggarwal

Daily Limit Reached

You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements

Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access

Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
  • No Ads
  • WhatsApp Broadcasts
  • Daily E-Newsletter
  • Unlimited Judgements Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
View all CCI PRO benfits

Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.

 
Comments


Recent Judgments :

  1. ITAT Jodhpur: AO Allows ₹2.61 Crore Deduction under Sections 54EC and 54F; Assessee's Appeal Dismissed as Infructuous
  2. CESTAT Revokes Suspension of Customs Broker Licence for Non-Compliance with Mandatory 15-Day Hearing Requirement
  3. ITAT Jodhpur: Penny Stock LTCG Cannot Be Treated as Bogus Merely on General Investigation Report
  4. CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside ₹22.84 Crore Service Tax Demand Against HCL Infosystems
  5. CESTAT Delhi Holds LED Modules Classifiable Under CTH 8539; Rejects Department's Classification Under CTH 9405
  6. Incremental GST burden on pre-GST works contracts is recoverable only from the contracting employer and not from the State or tax authorities
  7. Time Spent in Pursuing Rectification Application under Section 161 of the CGST Act Excludible While Computing Limitation for Filing Appeal under Section 107
  8. Cancellation of GST registration based on defective verification reports fails the statutory test of 'reasons to believe’
  9. Limitation for filing GST appeal runs from the date of actual communication of the order as declared by the dealer unless rebutted by the Revenue through cogent material
  10. Supreme Court: Cruise Operators Eligible for Section 44B Presumptive Taxation; Hospitality Services Do Not Change Nature of ‘Carriage’

View More Judgments »


Trending Online Classes

view all classess

CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Pro Member Jai SolankiJai SolankiPro Member JAYDEEP MITRAJAYDEEP MITRAPro Member xavierxavierPro Member Prakash KaduluriPrakash KaduluriPro Member AnoopAnoop
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals

Browse by Category