LAWS(NCD)-2015-4-151

DEEP SARAF Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

Decided On April 28, 2015
Deep Saraf Appellant
V/S
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 368/2009 Deep Saraf Vs. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner obtained joint mediclaim policy for himself, his mother Mrs. Archana Agrawal, wife Mrs. Ritu Saraf and son Aditya Saraf on 22.3.2003. Policy expired on 21.3.2005 and after a gap of 9 days after filing fresh proposal form, policy was renewed from 31.3.2005 and was continuing. Complainant's mother Mrs. Archna Agrawal was having problem of thigh -ache in the year 2007 and after examination by doctors her hip joint was replaced on 17.7.2007 at Breach Candy Hospital at Mumbai and expenses of Rs.5,19,041/ - were incurred. It was further alleged that prior intimation before operation was also given to the Insurance Company. Complainant lodged claim which was repudiated by OP/respondent on the ground that at the time of renewal of policy, Mrs. Archana Agrawal wilfully suppressed material fact. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 and 2/Respondent No. 1 and 2 resisted complaint and submitted that mother of the complainant was having pain in hip joint for the last three years, as per discharge slip of Dr. Manihar of Breach Candy Hospital and she suppressed this fact while renewal of policy, so claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) NONE appeared for Respondent No. 3 even after service and he was proceeded ex -parte.