u^ "4 •^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR IC.Q.\ W.P. N0. -s 7 ^ /2002 PETITIONER ESPONDENTS SURENDRA SINGH GUMBER, SON OF SHRI S.S. GUMBER AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION - BUSINESS R/0. ADARSH COLONY, BILASPUR, (C.G.) VERSUS ^" 1) ^UNION OF INDIA THROUGH : SISTER CONCERNED ilDIARY OF) GENERAL INSURANCE fl, ^.^^GRPORATION OF INDIA UNDER MINISTRY OF <^p^ ^f'^'-' ^ ^f^ ^y^'"", FINANCE. CHAIRMAN - CUM - MANAGING DIRECTOR ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NEW DELHI. 3) SENIOR DMSIONAL MANAGER, QRIENTAL INSURANCECOMPANY LIMITED. BILASPUR. [61227X /•"" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2261227 W THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT. MANDAMUS. ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THENATURE OF CERTIORARI. PROHIBJTLON l.—l-V. 3'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.576 OF 2002 PETITIONER Surendra Singh Gumber Versus RESPONDENTS Union of India & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri A. Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the Union of India. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 3. 1. 2. ORDER (Passed on this 24th day of November, 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the notice dated 13-2-2002 (Annexure - P/1) and further seeks a direction to the respondents not to withdraw the welfare policies. Case of the petitioner, in short, is that the respondent No.3 had introduced an insurance scheme namely; 'Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy', which was floated for public at large falling within the age group varying from 10 years to 70 years whereby the reSpondents undertook to insure those persons/their values for a period of one year against any accidental death. The amount of insurance was variable from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- depending upon the choice of the person insured and on the size and scale of the premium paid by the incumbent. The petitioner had opted for the policy and had paid a premium of Rs.1,500/- forinsurance vaiued at Rs.5,00,000/-, which is evident from Annexure - P/2. The said policy is valid up to 30-4-1997 to 29-4-2008. However, all of a sudden and without any prior intimation, the respondent No.3 cancelled the said policy by issuing a letterdated 13-2-2002 in an illegal and arbitrary manner and in contravention of the welfare policy of the insurance scheme. Thus, this petition, .^;1^^^ 1.."% '-:^y^ Gowri ^ Clause 5 ofthe Insurancepolicy provides that the Ihsurance Company may cancel the policy at any time with a written notice. In that event, the company shall deduct the proportionate premium amount and the remaining amount will be returned back to the concerned policy holder. On perusal of clause 5 of the policy, it is not found that there is any breach of the policy. An identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in S.P. Pillai v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others\ \Nhere\n this Court vide order dated 29-8-2011 noticed that while canceling the policy a cheque was also sent to the petitioner therein. Ih the instant case there is no pleading to this effect whether the notice of cancellation of policy carried a cheque or not. Even on query, no reply was offered by the petitioner. Thus, it is difficult to consider the said fact. There is no merit in this case. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, if so advised. In the result, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be ahd is herebydismissed. There shall be no order asto costs. _——— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge WP No.1677 of 2004 (decided on 29-8-2011)