ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. PRADIP DEORAM JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. A/11/423 Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradip Deoram Jadhav by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent purchased Family Floater Policy No. 164000/48/11/00178 from OP/Petitioner and it was valid for the period 16.8.1999 to 15.8.2000. It was further submitted that OP-Development Officer apprised him about new policy named Family Floater Policy. He applied for it and OP issued policy on 28.4.2010. It was further submitted that as he was not feeling well on 28.4.2010, he went to Dr. Muley for general check-up who advised him to contact Dr. Manoj B. Chopada Nashik. He contacted Dr. Chopada who advised him to undergo Angiography and Angioplasty which was performed on 29.4.2010. He incurred expenditure of Rs.2,50,000/-, but his claim was repudiated by OP on the ground that he suppressed the fact of suffering from BP, though, he was not the patient of BP and did not take any medicine. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that complainant was suffering from hypertension since 4 years and he had not disclosed this fact; hence, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.15,000/-for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.