WP(C) 3075/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr SK Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms B Das, the learned CGC appearing for the respondent No.1 None appears for the remaining respondents. The Court’s order dated 14.09.2010 indicates that Notices were a lready issued to the respondents No.2-4 by registered post with AD card on 09.04 .2010. In view of the lapse of over a month since then, it is hereby declared th at Notices are deemed to have been properly served upon these respondents. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is simply in nature. The petitioner is a senior citizen of India who along with his wife took mediclaim insurance policy from the respondent No.2 for a period commencing fro m 22.01.2002 to 21.01.2005 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each. The medical insu rance policy was renewed from time to time upto the year 2005. In the year 2003, there was an operation for transplantation of the Kidney of the petitioner due to renal failure. This was duly informed to the respondent No.2 with a request f or reimbursement of the cost of his treatment. The respondent No.2 did not take any action on the request made by the petitioner. After inordinate delay, it was informed by the respondent No.2 by the letter dated 16.05.2005 that his claim h ad been repudiated on the ground that he was operated/treated for pre-existing d isease. Challenging this repudiation, the petitioner approached the Insurance Om budsman for redressal of his grievances. The Insurance Ombudsman (respondent No. 4) after hearing the parties, directed the respondent No.2 to constitute a Medic al Board within 15 days from the date of receipt of the acceptance/consent lette r of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly submitted his consent letter. Ho wever, the respondent No.2 has not so far constituted the Medical Board in quest ion despite repeated reminders by the petitioner. It was under the aforesaid cir cumstances that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for appropri ate relief. I have seen the Order dated 09.10.2006 passed by the Insurance O mbudsman, Guwahati. This Order has not been challenged by the Insurance Ombudsma n till now. In my opinion, after a lapsed of over six year, this order must be d eemed to have been attained finality and is, therefore binding upon the responde nt No.2. That apart, it is distressing to note that the respondent No.2 has appa rently acted like a small time trader without showing any concern for its insure d. The respondent No.2 does not show any sense of sympathy for a senior citizen like the petitioner whose kidney has been transplanted. Under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to require th e respondent No.2 to constitute a Medical Board in question to re-examine the ca se of the petitioner in terms of the Order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman. Th e entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent No 2 including settlement of the claim within one month from the date of receipt of this order.