SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) SINCE it is evident that there is a difference between the parties as to the quantum of the petitioner's entitlement under the second claim, but there has been a denial of the claim in respect of the first and third claims, the appointment of an arbitrator may not be to the benefit of the parties as only a part of the disputes may be resolved thereby.
(2.) THE petitioner insists that the first claim lodged by the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected as was the third claim on account of post -hospitalisation charges. The strange arbitration clause that is adopted by the insurance company pertains only to the disputes relating to quantum but does not cover the disputes when the liability is denied under any claim by the insurance company. Since even if the arbitration is directed in this case it will only be a partial resolution of the disputes between the parties and the major disputes in the insurance company rejecting the first and third claims will remain outstanding, leave is given to the petitioner to institute an appropriate action in respect of all matters. If such action is instituted incorporating even the claim under the second head, the insurance company will not object to all the claims being taken up by the appropriate forum. AP No. 572 of 2013 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
(3.) URGENT certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.;