JUDGEMENT 1. This application has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited ostensibly against the order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Gaya. The ground for filing the writ application is that the Consumer Forum at Gaya lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in question. Detailed arguments were made in this regard by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits that the Mediclaim Insurance Policy was issued from the Deoghar Office which is in the State of Jharkhand. It was cancelled by the Deoghar Office which is in the State of Jharkhand and as such Gaya District Fora has no jurisdiction in the matter as no cause of action or part thereof arose in Gaya. Unfortunately, the policy itself has not been annexed to the writ application. The complaint and the order of the District Fora clearly show that all communications to the concerned individual were addressed to and delivered at Gaya. Learned counsel for the petitioner was fair enough to produce copies of policy schedule in question. In the policy schedule itself, insured name and address is given, clearly showing the name of in- sured Dr. Girija Shankar Prasad, Professor Colony, Red House Compound, Gaya. Thus the petitioner expected the policy holder to be the resident of Gaya and as such the benefits were to be enjoyed at Gaya which was sought to be terminated. Thus creating a part of cause of action at Gaya. This apart, all communications were addressed from Deoghar to Gaya. As the law of contract goes a communication of repudiation binds the person so communicated, only the place where communication is delivered to him and thus there is no denying that in Gaya there was a part of cause of action to file the complaint. It is therefore misconceived to hold that Gaya Forum lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 2. It is then submitted that the District Forum erred in directing retrospective renewal of policy and continue renewal of policy year after year. 3. In my view, the District Forum did not commit any error. I may clarify what District Forum made was that the policy which had already been issued would be valid or revalidated- In other words, the cancellation order was declared invalid. The consequences would be that the policy would not be deemed to be cancelled. 3. In my view, the District Forum did not commit any error. I may clarify what District Forum made was that the policy which had already been issued would be valid or revalidated- In other words, the cancellation order was declared invalid. The consequences would be that the policy would not be deemed to be cancelled. Renewal of subsequential policy is the matter of contract between parties and if renewal is not to be granted as a matter of policy then no forum can direct the same. The District Forum has not directed the same contrary to the policy of the company. It is not disputed that the company has the policy to grant coverage under Mediclaim up to the age of 80 if it is a continuing policy taken prior to attaining age of 75 years i.e. exactly the case in the present. Thus on payment of premium regularly and subject to other conditions of the policy, the company would be under obligation to renew the policy up to the age of the insured being 80. The premium refunded by the company to the insured would have to be returned by the insured to the company. 4. The request for payment of premium by issuance of policy must be made by the petitioner to the insured within fifteen days from today and on receipt of premiums, the policy certificates must be issued within fifteen days thereafter as per orders of this Court. 5. Subject to the aforesaid clarifications, the writ petition is dismissed.