CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7874 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 04 ,2011 M/s IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Gurgaon .....Petitioner VERSUS Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner-Insurance Company has been directed to pay the medi-claim of sum of `2,20,000/- to respondent No.2 by permanent Lok Adalat, Gurgaon. The petitioner-Company has challenged the said order through the present writ petition. Respondent No.2 had obtained an individual medi-claim policy for himself and his wife from the petitioner-Company. This policy was valid for the year 2007-08. Subsequently, this policy was renewed from 6.6.2008 to 5.6.2009 and again from 6.6.2009 to 5.6.2010. Respondent No.2 was hospitalized from 10.3.2010 to 12.3.2010 for treatment of coronary artery disease in Medicity, Sector 38, Gurgaon. He prayed for cashless facility for treatment, which was denied by respondent No.3-Hospital. Respondent No.2 thereafter raised a claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7874 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: him on his treatment. His claim for payment was denied on the ground that his was a known case of coronary artery disease since 2002. It is stated that the treatment of disease taken by respondent No.2 in the year 2010 was not covered under the medi-shield policy as he was suffering from this disease prior to taking the policy. Respondent No.2 accordingly had approached the Lok Adalat, which has allowed the claim. Sole submission before this Court is that claim has been declined in terms of the conditions of the policy and such a claim would not be admissible. This defence to me would sound highly unfair. Why would one take a policy of medi-claim if he is not to get his claim for genuine treatment taken? It is for the Insurance Company to see and not to issue a policy where they find that such person is not entitled to claim on account of treatment of the existing disease. The petitioner had been paying the premium for the last three years. He may be suffering from this disease since 2002 but need to seek treatment arose only in 2010. One would not take medi- claim policy just for the purpose of paying premium. The ground advanced by the petitioner to deny this claim is unfair and unreasonable. Respondent No.2 had a valid policy from the petitioner and they must now honour the same. I do not find any justification to interfere in the order passed by the Lok Adalat. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 04,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE