Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 881 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTCancellation of the policy of insurance - group discount in respect of J.P.A. (Group) Policy - natural person who claims to be a beneficiary of a J.P.A. Group Insurance Policy - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of J.P.A. Group Policy. The stand taken by the insurance company is that such policy underwent a revision subsequently and that, the insurance company changed its policy. The change in the policy is reflected in the writing dated August 1, 2002. The insurance company is no longer in a position to continue with a long-term J.P.A. Group Insurance cover for 15 years granting a cover of ₹ 10 lacs. An insurance company is entitled to change its policy. This change in policy led to the issuance of the impugned letter dated August 1, 2002 - The fact that there is a change of policy is not disputed. The writing dated August 1, 2002 itself not contains the justification of change in policy. The justification is set forth in the affidavit of the insurance company. A Court is entitled to consider the materials on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken. In the facts of the present case, change of policy is a complete justification for the termination. The impugned letter dated August 1, 2002 therefore, in such that it cannot be said to be arbitrary requiring interference by a writ Court. The insurance company having acted in terms of the contract between the parties as contained in J.P.A. Group Insurance Policy, it cannot be said that, such an action is arbitrary or unreasonable. The parties to a contract must abide by it howsoever unreasonable, one of the parties may find such terms to be. It is of no consequence that, the Court might find the action taken on the basis of the agreed terms to be unreasonable. It is not for the Court to rewrite the contract for the parties. There is no infirmity in the impugned actions taken by the insurance company - petition dismissed.
|