Letters Patent Appeal No.462 OF 2006 ******* Against the Order dated 23.05.2006 passed in CWJC no. 15589 of 2005. ******* THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.---------Appellant Versus PURNIMA PRASAD & ORS-----------------Respondents ******* For the Appellant : M/s. Seema & Prakash Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Prakash ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. In the writ petition, which has been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal, the original writ petitioner sought a direction 2 upon the appellant, Insurance Company, to renew a Medi claim Policy taken out by the original writ petitioner. There is no dispute that the concerned policy was taken out on 04th December, 1996. The same was valid for a period of one year and was renewed from year to year without any break until 04th December, 2003. In the meantime, on 08th April, 2003 one of the beneficiaries of the policy suffered a disease, the peril of which was covered by the Policy. A claim for re-imbursement of the cost incurred for treatment of such disease was lodged under the Policy on or before 03rd December, 2003. The policy was once again renewed and, accordingly, the validity thereof stood extended up to 03rd December, 2004. The claim, as was lodged, in view of the sufferance, as mentioned above, was settled. However, the policy was not renewed for the next succeeding period of one year commencing from 04th December, 2004. In that 3 background on 14th May, 2005 the Policy holder wrote a letter to the appellant-Insurance Company in relation to non-renewal of the said Policy. Two sentences of that letter, we think are significant. Those are as follows: “I regret that in the current year 2004-05 the policy was not been renewed. I was told by my Agent, Mr. P.N. Opadhayay that the Policy cannot be renewed as per higher level instructions.” In the background of the admitted facts the regret expressed in the first sentence quoted above, appears to us, was that of the writer of the letter. He, according to us, expressly held out thus that he could not renew the Policy for the period 04th December, 2004 to 03rd December, 2005 on or before expiry of the Policy on 03rd December, 2004. The second sentence denotes that when he wanted to renew the policy subsequent to 04th December, 2004 the Agent Mr. P.N. Opadhayay held out to him that the Policy 4 cannot be renewed at that time as per high level instructions. 2. The right of a Medi claim policy holder to continue to have himself covered to the extent of the amount assured by renewing the Policy on or before its expiry cannot be denied even if a claim under the Policy has been made and settled. That appears to be the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Biman Krishna Bose Vrs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Another; reported in (2001) 6 SCC 477. Howerver, if the Policy is not renewed before its expiry, and, accordingly, right to renew the policy is not exercised, the contract of issuance recognizing such right comes to an end, when one of the contracting parties cannot force the other contracting party to enter into a similar contract. 5 3. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and dismiss the writ petition. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, The 20th August, 2008. AAhmad/ (NAFR).