ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, which, prima facie, this Court believes that is nothing but abuse and misuse of process of law at the hands of insurance company, the petitioner challenged the judgment and award dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Ahmedabad in Complaint No.AHD-H-044-2122-0897 on the ground that the same is illegal and wrong. 2.1 In the nutshell, it is the case of the insurance company that though the policy holder, who availed mediclaim from the insurance company for a validity period upto 18.10.2020 and was subsequently renewed thereafter for a sum insured of Rs.5 Lakhs and though the period of hospitalisation of policy holder was between 26.09.2020 till 24.10.2020, when a claim was raised by the policy holder, the insurance company proceeded the claim of the petitioner only upto the validity period of the petitioner and paid a sum of Rs.5/ Lakhs. 2.2 The total bill placed by policy holder was Rs.7,06,385/-. 2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that as per the 2016 Regulations which is named as Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (‘IRDA’, for short), the petitioner is not entitled to aforesaid claim. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Raval submitted in the year 2013 Regulations, there was clause 8(d)(iv), which is in respect of settlement / rejection of claim by the insurer which reads as under: “8. Protection of Policyholders’ Interest: a. xxx …. b. …. c. …. d. Settlement / Rejection of claim by insurer: i. xxx …. ii. … … iii. … …. iv. If the claim event falls within two policy periods, the claims shall be paid taking into consideration the available sum insured in the two policy periods, including the deductibles for each policy period. Such eligible claim amount to be payable to the insured shall be reduced to the extent of premium to be received for the renewal / due date of premium of health insurance policy, if not received earlier.” 3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Raval submitted that in the 2016 Regulations, aforesaid clause was omitted. Meaning thereby, that if the hospitalisation of patient takes place during the validity period of two policies, the sum insured only in respect of first policy is required to be considered and even if policy is renewed for remaining period, the amount cannot be said to be admissible amount though the patient is covered under the policy. Meaning thereby, that if the hospitalisation of patient takes place during the validity period of two policies, the sum insured only in respect of first policy is required to be considered and even if policy is renewed for remaining period, the amount cannot be said to be admissible amount though the patient is covered under the policy. 3.3 Learned advocate Mr.Raval further submitted that the petitioner insurance company has already paid a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to the policy holder, however, while considering the claim of the policy holder, Insurance Ombudsman vide impugned order dated 29.07.2022 directed the Insurance Company to consider the period of renewed policy also for an amount admissible while issuing following guidelines, in para:6 of the order dated 29.07.2022. “6. It is noted that the claim documents submitted to this Forum has no separate details about the expenses incurred for day wise treatments availed during the hospitalisation. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both the parties during the course of hearing, the Forum hereby directs respondent insurer to revisit this case and settle the claim for hospitalisation expenses for the days falling under renewed policy for an amount admissible under the policy as per guidelines as per the terms of the policy within 30 days from the receipt of the award. They may obtain further information or additional documents from the complainant. The complainant is also directed to co-operate with the respondent insurer in this regard. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.” 3.4 According to Mr.Raval, though the medical condition or hospitalisation of the policy holder is not questioned by the insurer and insurance company has already paid amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to the respondent policy holder, now the dispute revolves only around Rs.3 Lakhs for which direction has been issued by Ombudsman to the respondent company to consider the renewed policy period and pay remaining amount to the policy holder. 3.5 According to learned advocate Mr.Ratin Raval, aforesaid directions issued by the Ombudsman is contrary to policy of IRDA which is in force by Regulations 2016. 4. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Raval. This Court has also considered the fact that the insurance company was not hospitalised or that expenses incurred by policy holder was exorbitant or not genuine. 4. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Raval. This Court has also considered the fact that the insurance company was not hospitalised or that expenses incurred by policy holder was exorbitant or not genuine. The insurance company wants to take benefit of an ambiguity between 2013 Regulations and 2016 Regulations. Regulation No.8(d)(iv), as produced in forgoing para of 2013 Regulations, makes it clear that for the purpose of considering the claim of policy holder, once the policy is renewed, both policies are required to be considered if during the period of hospitalisation one policy expires and the same is renewed by way of another policy. According to learned advocate Mr.Raval, aforesaid provision was deleted while 2016 Regulations was formed by IRDA and, therefore, by way of this petition, the insurance company is fighting for a meager amount of Rs.3 Lakhs. 5.1 I have considered the 2013 Regulations as well as 2016 Regulations both. It is true that Regulation 8(d) (iv) is there in the year 2013 and the same is omitted in 2016 regulations. However, I have considered the fact that it is not specifically bar in 2016 Regulations that, in the event if during the period of hospitalisation, validity period of one policy comes to end and if the policy is renewed, the claim of the policy holder cannot be considered in respect of renewed policy. It is unfortunate that on one hand, the insurance company keeps on spending hundred of crores of rupees for advertisement and on the other hand insurance company is challenging the orders whereby even an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs which is required to be paid by the insurance company in respect of genuine case of hospitalisation. Further, I have considered that the Ombudsman has specifically observed in the order impugned in this petition that the case of the policy holder was considered by Ombudsman in light of policy issued to the policy holder in the year 2017. 5.2 Further, it is really unfortunate that at first, the Insurance Company straightway rejected the claim of the policy holder and policy holder ultimately even after suffering agony of hospitalisation and despite having policy could not get amount of treatment which he had already paid to the hospital till 2022, though the handsome amount of premium he had paid at the time of buying policy from insurance company. 5.3 The very basic purpose behind the health insurance is to ensure that person may not suffer on account of monitory constraints at the time of hospitalisation and, therefore, a person usually buys the insurance policy. The IRDA has also framed regulations keeping in mind the interest of the policy holders. If the intention of IRDA at the time of Regulations 2016, in any manner, is contrary to policy holders adversely affecting, in that case, such regulations are required to have a relooked at. 6.1 At this juncture, considering the fact that 2016 Regulations specifically does not put a bar at insurance company to pay amount of claim to a policy holder, if during the period of hospitalisation, one policy gets expired and same is renewed by way of another policy as in any case at the time of hospitalisation as well as at the time of discharge, at both the times, the patient / policy holder / beneficiary can be said to be insured person. 6.2 Further, on perusal of the record, I have found that the contentions raised by Mr.Raval before this Court about the Regulation of 2016 were never raised before the Ombudsman which is evident from the fact that while passing the impugned order the Ombudsman has recorded the submission made by the Insurance Company and the entire submission of the respondent company was based upon the fact that the sum ensured by the company was exhausted and nowhere in the order it is stated that the present petitioner raised contentions which were raised before the Ombudsman. Further, the present petitioner has not even cared to place on record the reply filed by the Insurance Company before the Ombudsman. In absence of there being any material to indicate that a specific defense which is taken by the petitioner, which is contended by the petitioner before this Court, was raised before the Ombudsman also and, therefore, in absence of there being any material on record to indicate anything contrary to the order passed by the Ombudsman, the order passed by Ombudsman cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal. 6.3 Further, I have also considered the amount involved in this entire litigation which is a meager amount of Rs.3 lakhs, which is nothing as compared to the amount spent after litigation and after advertisement by the insurance company. 6.3 Further, I have also considered the amount involved in this entire litigation which is a meager amount of Rs.3 lakhs, which is nothing as compared to the amount spent after litigation and after advertisement by the insurance company. Therefore, I do not deem it appropriate to entertain this petition. However, this Court is of the prima facie view that this petition is nothing but deliberate attempt on the part of the insurance company to deny the beneficiary the amount of claim, which is right of beneficiary and also considering the very purpose behind the insurance, this petition is required to be dismissed on the ground that an amount involved is meager amount of Rs.3 lakhs as also Regulations 2016 do not put specific bar on insurance company to make payment for a continuous hospitalisation even if in between policy expires and is replaced by another renewed policy. With a view to ensure that such abuse of process of law at the hands of Insurance Companies does not take place in future and common men may not suffer, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- out of which Rs.25,000/- to be paid to Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Library and remaining Rs.25,000/- to be disbursed in favour of respondent policy holder. 7. Insofar as submission of learned advocate Mr.Raval that no cost may be imposed since no notice is issued is concerned, this Court is of the view that this Court is amply empowered to impose cost if the Court feels that with an abuse of process of law, the Court’s time is also wasted, which the Court prima facie feels that the same is done by Insurance Company, request of learned advocate Mr.Raval not to impose cost is rejected.